Datasets:

1-800-SHARED-TASKS

/

COLING-2025-FINNLP-FMD

like 2

Follow

1-800-Shared-Tasks 33

Is Stacey Abrams responsible for a debt exceeding $50,000 in overdue taxes?

['A graphic criticizing the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate was not inaccurate, but neither was it a "gotcha" moment.']

A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams owing a large sum in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details in an attempt to frame her as irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading, "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams, the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes." Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. However, although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show she is on a payment plan after deferring payments for the tax years 2015 and 2016. The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on April 24, 2018, stating that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education left her with more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on additional financial responsibilities. She wrote, "I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today I remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations—however slowly but surely." Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC. Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that, according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company.

['taxes']

True

Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016.The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities:Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC. Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company.

Hunters contribute more than $500 million to West Virginia.

[]

In a tweet that preceded West Virginias buck firearm season, West Virginia Gov. Jim Justice encouraged West Virginians to purchase a hunting license. In the tweet, he offered an economic rationale -- that hunting is an economic engine for the state. In theNov. 5 tweet, Justice wrote, I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttp://wvhunt.com.#WV#WVHunt. I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttps://t.co/burilhQECG.#WV#WVHuntpic.twitter.com/btBNdz4TR6 State offices have thrown around the figure more than once. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources sent atweeton Nov. 24 that used the same dollar figure, adding that deer hunters in particular spend an estimated $230 million in West Virginia, much of it in the rural areas of the state. We wondered: Do bucks, and other game, really bring the state 500 million bucks? When we contacted Justices office, Jordan Damron, the governors assistant legal counsel and digital director, cited it to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. A Nov. 14press releasefrom the division includes the $500 million figure and said that hunting is estimated to be responsible for 5,400 jobs and $35 million in sales taxes on goods and services spent in West Virginia. The news release said the numbers came from Southwick Associates, a research firm focusing on outdoor markets. TheSouthwick Associates reportsaid that there had been $421,819,113 in retail sales in West Virginia, with a multiplier effect raising that amount to $552,085,233. The multiplier was used to estimate the total amount of spending that occurs in the economy as a result of hunters spending. The report also said that 5,377 jobs were created through hunting and $35,544,522 in state and local taxes were gathered due to hunting. The amount spent on deer hunting alone was $291,972,745. So the numbers cited by Justice exist. But well offer a few caveats. First, the report is from 2012 and the data is from 2011. Though Justice offered a specific-sounding figure, the actual figure might have grown or shrunk in the subsequent seven-plus years. Second, multiplier effects are estimates and are highly dependent on the assumptions used. Different assumptions will lead to different results. Using the retail sales figure without the multiplier adjustment might have been a more defensible approach. Finally, the report says it was funded by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and produced in partnership with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The association represents government officials who oversee hunting, but the National Shooting Sports Foundationbills itselfas the firearms industry trade association. This means that the NSSF is an advocacy group that has a vested interest in promoting hunting. As with any advocacy group, its data should be understood in this context. Justice said that hunters contribute more than $500 million to West Virginia. This statistic comes from a comprehensive, 50-state report, but its worth noting that the data is more than seven years old, that it uses an estimate of economic impact beyond just retail sales, and that the report was funded by an industry trade group. We rate the statement Mostly True.

['West Virginia', 'Animals', 'Economy', 'Guns']

True

In theNov. 5 tweet, Justice wrote, I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttp://wvhunt.com.#WV#WVHunt.I've said it before and I'll say it again, hunting is really something that can help our economy grow! Hunters contribute more than $500 million to our state each year and help support a lot of jobs. Get a license today athttps://t.co/burilhQECG.#WV#WVHuntpic.twitter.com/btBNdz4TR6State offices have thrown around the figure more than once. The West Virginia Division of Natural Resources sent atweeton Nov. 24 that used the same dollar figure, adding that deer hunters in particular spend an estimated $230 million in West Virginia, much of it in the rural areas of the state.When we contacted Justices office, Jordan Damron, the governors assistant legal counsel and digital director, cited it to the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources. A Nov. 14press releasefrom the division includes the $500 million figure and said that hunting is estimated to be responsible for 5,400 jobs and $35 million in sales taxes on goods and services spent in West Virginia.TheSouthwick Associates reportsaid that there had been $421,819,113 in retail sales in West Virginia, with a multiplier effect raising that amount to $552,085,233. The multiplier was used to estimate the total amount of spending that occurs in the economy as a result of hunters spending.Finally, the report says it was funded by the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) and produced in partnership with the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. The association represents government officials who oversee hunting, but the National Shooting Sports Foundationbills itselfas the firearms industry trade association. This means that the NSSF is an advocacy group that has a vested interest in promoting hunting. As with any advocacy group, its data should be understood in this context.

Hillary Clinton to Be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges

['A broken Huffington Post link circulated on social media suggested that Hillary Clinton would soon face an indictment, but the article was unvetted and did not list any credible sources.']

On 29 May 2016, Facebook user Frank Huguenard published a Huffington Post link leading to an article titled "Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges" and an article bylined to him: published The claims caused a stir, then disappeared as quickly as they manifested. Clicking through to the link on 30 May 2016 led to an error message: error However, the text of the article remains accessible on forums, blogs, and archives. Huguenard's original piece reported that Clinton would be indicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (or RICO) Act, and maintained that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would recommend to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that Clinton be indicted on charges related to money laundering, among other things: reported The Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) is a United States Federal Law passed in 1970 that was designed to provide a tool for law enforcement agencies to fight organized crime. RICO allows prosecution and punishment for alleged racketeering activity that has been executed as part of an ongoing criminal enterprise. Activity considered to be racketeering may include bribery, counterfeiting, money laundering, embezzlement, illegal gambling, kidnapping, murder, drug trafficking, slavery, and a host of other nefarious business practices. James Comey and The FBI will present a recommendation to Loretta Lynch, Attorney General of the Department of Justice, that includes a cogent argument that the Clinton Foundation is an ongoing criminal enterprise engaged in money laundering and soliciting bribes in exchange for political, policy and legislative favors to individuals, corporations and even governments both foreign and domestic. Initially, Comey had indicated that the investigation into Hillarys home brewed email server was to be concluded by October of 2015. However, as more and more evidence in the case has come to light, this initial date kept being pushed back as the criminal investigation has expanded well beyond violating State Department regulations to include questions about espionage, perjury and influence peddling. There were no citations for these claims. There was also no information about how the article's author learned of the supposedly impending indictment: Heres what we do know. Tens of millions of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation was funneled to the organization through a Canadian shell company which has made tracing the donors nearly impossible. Less than 10% of donations to the Foundation has actually been released to charitable organizations and $2M that has been traced back to long time Bill Clinton friend Julie McMahon (aka The Energizer). When the official investigation into Hillarys email server began, she instructed her IT professional to delete over 30,000 emails and cloud backups of her emails older than 30 days at both Platte River Networks and Datto, Inc. The FBI has subsequently recovered the majority, if not all, of Hillarys deleted emails and are putting together a strong case against her for attempting to cover up her illegal and illicit activities. A conviction under RICO comes when the Department of Justice proves that the defendant has engaged in two or more examples of racketeering and that the defendant maintained an interest in, participated in or invested in a criminal enterprise affecting interstate or foreign commerce. There is ample evidence already in the public record that the Clinton Foundation qualifies as a criminal enterprise and theres no doubt that the FBI is privy to significantly more evidence than has already been made public. Under RICO, the sections most relevant in this case will be section 1503 (obstruction of justice), section 1510 (obstruction of criminal investigations) and section 1511 (obstruction of State or local law enforcement). As in the case with Richard Nixon after the Watergate Break-in, its the cover-up of a crime that will be the Clintons downfall. Furthermore, under provisions of title 18, United States Code: Section 201, the Clinton Foundation can be held accountable for improprieties relating to bribery. The FBI will be able to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that through the Clinton Foundation, international entities were able to commit bribery in exchange for help in securing business deals, such as the uranium-mining deal in Kazakhstan. It is a Federal Crime to negligently handle classified information under United States Code (USC) 18 section 1924. It is a Federal Class A Felony under USC 18 section 798. Hillary certified under oath to a federal judge that she had handed over to the state department all of her emails, which she clearly did not. In spite of her repeated statements to the effect that everything that she did with her home brewed email server as Secretary of State was above-board and approved by the State Department, the Inspector General Report vehemently refutes this claim. Hillary refused to be interview by the Inspector Generals office in their investigation, claiming that her upcoming FBI interview took precedent but it seems more likely that Hillary is more concerned about committing perjury or admitting to anything that can be used against her in a court of law. Huguenaud concluded (again, with little to no supporting evidence) that Hillary Clinton was guilty of exposing classified documents to foreign governments and conspiring to circumvent Freedom of Information Act requests by avoiding the use of State Department servers: Some of the documents were so highly classified the the investigators on the case werent even able to examine the material themselves until they got their own clearances raised to the highest levels. While there is an excellent [case] to be made the Hillary committed treasonous actions, the strongest case the FBI has is charging both Bill and Hillary Clinton as well as the Clinton Foundation of Racketeering. Theres no wonder why its taken this long for the FBI to bring forward a recommendation. The rabbit hole is so deep on this one that it has taking dozens of investigators to determine the full extent of the crimes that have been committed. Perhaps the most interesting question here is whether or not the FBIs investigation will be able to directly link The Clinton Foundation with The Hillary Victory Fund. If this happens, the DNC itself may be in jeopardy of accusations of either being an accomplice or of being complicit in racketeering. After the article vanished, rumors swirled that Huffington Post retracted it under pressure from the Clintons, the Democratic National Committee, or other entities with a possible interest in suppressing the information it contained. However, the archived version of the article contained the following caveat: This post is hosted on the Huffington Posts Contributor platform. Contributors control their own work and post freely to our site. If you need to flag this entry as abusive, send us an email. Huguenaud published the item himself as a contributor to Huffington Post, where a disclaimer warned that information published through that platform is not vetted or official. In July 2016, the FBI recommended that no charges be brought against Clinton in connection with her use of a private e-mail server.

['interest']

False

On 29 May 2016, Facebook user Frank Huguenard published a Huffington Post link leading to an article titled "Hillary Clinton to be Indicted on Federal Racketeering Charges" and an article bylined to him:The claims caused a stir, then disappeared as quickly as they manifested. Clicking through to the link on 30 May 2016 led to an error message: However, the text of the article remains accessible on forums, blogs, and archives. Huguenard's original piece reported that Clinton would be indicted under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (or RICO) Act, and maintained that the Federal Bureau of Investigation would recommend to Attorney General Loretta Lynch that Clinton be indicted on charges related to money laundering, among other things:

Did Santa Claus get crucified in Japan?

['Did a Japanese department store once display Santa Claus nailed to a cross?']

Driven by a thriving retail industry, a cultural penchant for obligatory gift-giving, and a fascination with the West, the Japanese adopted (and adapted) several traditional Western holiday celebrations after World War II. Stripped of their meaning and bent to the whims of retailers, however, these holidays have taken some rather unusual forms in Japan over the years. The Mary Chocolate Co. is credited with bringing Valentine's Day to Japan in 1958, with the twist that it should be a day for girls to give gifts to guys. Naturally, this led to the retail industry's creation of "White Day" on March 14, an occasion for boys to reciprocate all those chocolates they had been given a month earlier by buying white presents (such as white candy, handkerchiefs, or panties) for their partners. Likewise, the Seibu department store recast St. Patrick's Day as "Green Day," a retail promotion featuring things green and Irish. (It didn't work.) The Japan Biscuit Association touted Halloween as an occasion that Americans celebrate by eating biscuits. (When that failed to go over well, the custom melded into one of friends giving each other orange candy and cakes.) However, the Western holiday that carries the most influence in Japan is, not surprisingly, the holiday that carries the most influence in the West as well: Christmas. Although St. Francis Xavier, a Spanish Jesuit missionary, brought Christianity to Japan in 1549, the celebration of Christmas was mostly limited to churches and missionary schools until the 20th century. (Indeed, Christianity was outlawed in Japan after a religious uprising in 1639 and henceforth practiced only clandestinely until 1854.) The exchanging of gifts at Christmastime by Japanese families began in a small way early this century, and Japanese stores began offering Christmas sales in the 1930s. Starting with the American occupation of Japan in 1945, Christianity enjoyed a brief surge in popularity, and Christmas took off in a big (and commercialized) way. As you'd expect in a country where less than 2% of the population is Christian, Christmas is primarily a secular occasion in Japan, with shops and businesses remaining open for the day. The Japanese have adopted many of the traditional trappings of 'Kurisumasu,' such as stores with elaborate displays of Christmas decorations and piped-in Christmas music, and homes made festive with Christmas lights, Christmas trees, and poinsettias. The elimination of the religious aspects of Christmas and its hyper-commercialization have led to some unique (and, to us, bizarre) ways of celebrating it. The exchanging of kurisumasu cakes is not exactly a Western tradition, but it doesn't sound too unusual to us. What we do find unusual are reports of Japanese Christmas customs such as young couples exchanging presents of expensive jewelry, heading out to high-priced hotels, and being directed by scantily-clad female elves to rooms complete with Christmas trees, where the lovebirds spend their Christmas Eve in romantic bliss. The co-optation of familiar Christmas figures, both secular and religious, in the service of mass merchandising has also produced some rather curious blendings (real and imagined): Colonel Sanders dressed in a Santa suit (as KFC tried strenuously to promote fried chicken as the "traditional" Christmas meal), nuns singing advertising jingles to the tune of Christmas carols, Christmas cards featuring a ghoulish Santa in a graveyard accompanied by the Virgin Mary on a broomstick, elves plastered on sake, and a Christmas revue featuring "stripping nuns and three lecherous Wise Men." And sometimes they just don't get it at all, such as when a Japanese TV station reportedly ran the movie Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence, a disturbing film about English soldiers in a Japanese POW camp, as its festive holiday offering. By far the most well-known of these Japanese/Western holiday blendings is the notorious story of a department store somewhere in Japan that one year supposedly erected a prominent Christmas display featuring as its centerpiece the smiling figure of Santa Claus nailed to a cross. It's a perfect expression of the clash between the holy and the profane, the secular and the religious, the East and the West. It speaks to xenophobic fears (these foreigners can't be trusted with our religion and our traditions!), and it's a darn funny story. A few Decembers ago, a Japanese department store, desperate to appear westernized and with-it, mounted an extravagant Christmas display featuring a life-sized Santa Claus crucified upon a cross. The granddaddy of cultural faux pas in Japan occurred just after World War II when a Ginza department store rolled out its elaborate Christmas promotion: a smiling Santa nailed to a crucifix. A Japanese department store reputedly once put up a big Christmas cartoon that prominently displayed a Santa Claus on a crucifix. Whether or not this story, which has been circulating in Tokyo for some years, is true or just another urban legend is unclear. A famous story from 1945, the first year of the U.S. occupation of Japan after World War II, recounts how shopkeepers in Tokyo's Ginza district knew there was a big Western holiday coming and wanted to capitalize on it. "They knew there was this guy in a white beard and a red suit, and they knew there was a religious angle," said an American Motorola executive. "And the result was little Santa Clauses on crucifixes." A few years ago, in Kyoto, one department store filled its center window with an enormous effigy of a crucified Santa Claus. However, despite all the people who assert that the tale of the crucified Santa is true and that they know someone who actually saw it, the literal truthfulness of this legend is suspect. No one to our knowledge has produced evidence documenting that such a Christmas display was ever used commercially in Japan (other than as a knowing joke), such as a photograph of the scene or a contemporaneous news account that recorded its date and location. In true urban legend fashion, the details of where, when, and how the crucified Santa Claus was displayed are vague and vary from telling to telling: Santa appeared on a cross in Kyoto, Tokyo, the Ginza district, or a specific department store (such as Mitsukoshi); he was represented with a gigantic figure, a life-sized display, several small characters, a billboard, or a cartoon drawing; and Santa was nailed to a cross in Japan in 1945 or 1962 or 1990 or anywhere between "just after World War II" to "a few years ago." The mixing of Christian crucifixion iconography and Santa Claus is an unlikely pairing, even to non-Christians. Nativity scenes, not crucifixes, are the religious displays featured at Christmastime, and anyone with the least bit of thoughtfulness would have to wonder why a smiling, happy, jolly figure would be depicted hanging from boards with nails driven through his hands and feet. Santa Claus in a creche might be a plausible mistake (there are claims that figures such as the Seven Dwarfs have been spotted standing in for the Three Wise Men in various parts of the world), but a crucified Santa challenges credulity. As parody, it's believable; as an honest mistake, we find it implausible. Perhaps the key to this legend is the timing. Despite claims of crucified Santas in Japan that span the entire post-war era, the earliest reports of this legend we've found so far all stem from the early 1990s. Not coincidentally, up until that time, Japan had been riding the economic high of their "bubble economy," and Americans watched in dismay as the Japanese business model was widely touted as superior to the American. Dire predictions were made about the dominance of the American (and world) economy by Japan, and asset-rich Japanese began snapping up foreign (especially American) real estate such as New York's Rockefeller Center. Should we be surprised that a xenophobic legend involving a clash between Japan and one of the most hallowed aspects of Western culture might arise from such circumstances? Alternatively, we can ignore all the foreign trappings and simply interpret this legend as a commentary on the commercialization of Christmas, a holiday in which Jesus Christ has now been replaced (symbolically and literally) by Santa Claus. This was the point artist Robert Cenedella was trying to make when he drew the ire of religious groups over his painting of a crucified Santa Claus, which was displayed in the window of New York's Art Students League in December 1997.

['asset']

True

The Mary Chocolate Co. is credited with bringing Valentine's Day to Japan in 1958, with the twist that it should be a day for girls to give gifts to guys. Naturally, this led to the retail industry's creation of "White Day" on March 14, an occasion for the boys to reciprocate all those chocolates they'd been given a month earlier by buying white presents (such as white candy, handkerchiefs, or panties) for their gals. Likewise, the Seibu department store recast St. Patrick's Day as "Green Day," a retail promotion featuring things green and Irish. (It didn't work.) The Japan Biscuit Association touted Halloween as an occasion that Americans celebrate by eating biscuits. (When that failed to go over well, the custom melded into one of friends giving each other orange candy and cakes.)Anderson, Walter Truett. The Truth About the Truth. New York: J P Tarcher, 1995. ISBN 0-874-77801-8.

Did Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene Say 'Jewish Space Lasers' Caused California Wildfires?

['The Republican representative from Georgia has endorsed QAnon conspiracy theories, among others.']

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed. Marjorie Taylor Greene courted controversy interaction 9/11 conspiracy theories One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before. reported now-deleted theorized similar claims She said, "there are too many coincidences to ignore" and "oddly there are all these people who have said they saw what looked like lasers or blue beams of light causing the fires." Greene also speculated that a range of people or groups were involved in this fire, including former California Gov. Jerry Brown, Pacific Gas & Electric (PG&E), and Rothschild Inc., an investment firm. She said that Roger Kimmel, who was on the board of PG&E, was also "Vice Chairman of Rothschild Inc," and "If they are beaming the suns energy back to Earth, I'm sure they wouldn't ever miss a transmitter receiving station right??!! I mean mistakes are never made when anything new is invented. What would that look like anyway? A laser beam or light beam coming down to Earth I guess. Could that cause a fire? Hmmm, I don't know. I hope not! That wouldn't look so good for PG&E, Rothschild Inc, Solaren or Jerry Brown who sure does seem fond of PG&E." The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy. targets An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation, and strong winds. showed In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page. removed Given that Greene did not directly state that "Jewish lasers" caused the fires, but did speculate that laser beams somehow connected to the Rothschild investment firm were a cause, we rate this claim as "Mixture."

['banking']

NEI

Republican Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene from Georgia has courted controversy on various issues by promoting QAnon conspiracy theories, alongside a history of anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic remarks. Years-old views, including a Facebook interaction in which she agreed with a comment that the Parkland shooting was a "false flag" staged event, and a video in which she pushed 9/11 conspiracy theories, have been unearthed.One post from 2018 in particular was reported on by Media Matters for America, a watchdog group, where she speculated about a conspiracy surrounding the November 2018 wildfires in California. In the now-deleted post, Greene theorized that a space-based solar generator, used in a clean-energy experiment with the goal of replacing coal and oil, could have beamed the sun's energy back to Earth and started the fires. We have covered similar claims surrounding the wildfires before.The Rothschilds, a Jewish banking family, have long been the targets of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories claiming that Jewish people are in control of the entire world. While Greene specifically did not use the words "Jewish space laser," she heavily implied that the Rothschilds were involved in the laser conspiracy.An investigation showed that the California wildfires of 2018 were ignited by PG&E power lines, and then spread with the help of warm temperatures, dry vegetation, and strong winds.In late January 2021, CNN reported that dozens of posts from 2018 and 2019 had been removed from Greene's Facebook page.

Obama personally funds the establishment of a Muslim museum during a time of government shutdown.

['Is President Obama using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown?']

Claim: President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this. Origins: On 2 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article. However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...": (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated: 5 October 2013

['budget']

NEI

Origins: On 2 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown:The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that:(For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.)

Virginia tax receipts in just the last four years alone have grown 50%.

["Virginia's general fund tax receipts grew 45.2 % over the last four fiscal years, slightly lower than the 50% growth Gov.", "Glenn Youngkin has claimed., Virginia's revenue growth is in line with what other states have experienced."]

Gov. Glenn Youngkin has been stressing that Virginia can afford the $1 billion in tax cuts he recently proposed. The overtaxation of Virginians is something we can address here and now because we have seen the government's tax resources grow astronomically, Youngkin said on Jan. 23 during a speech at the Weinstein Jewish Community Center in Richmond. Receipts in the last four years alone have grown by 50%. Virginia's Republican governor made the same 50% tax growth claim in his State of the Commonwealth Address on Jan. 11. We fact-checked the governor's claim and found it to be close to the mark. Youngkin wants to cut levies that go to Virginia's general fund, which supports public education, public safety, health programs, and general government expenses. Those tax revenues grew by 45.2% during the past four budget years, according to state financial records. Virginia collected $19.9 billion in general fund taxes for the fiscal year that ran from the start of July 2017 to the end of June 2018. It took in $28.9 billion for the budget year that ended in mid-2022. (Virginia's fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.) The general fund has three major sources of revenue: personal income tax, corporate income tax, and sales tax. These account for 93% of the general fund's tax receipts, and each revenue stream significantly grew during the last four years, even as tax rates remained unchanged and Virginia's population barely grew. Let's take a look. Personal income taxes are by far the largest source of general fund money, contributing about two-thirds of the revenue. Their net revenue grew over the last four budget years (fiscal 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022) from $14.1 billion to $20.4 billion—a 44.7% increase. Nationally, state income tax receipts grew by an estimated 36.7% over the same span, data from the National Association of State Budget Officers shows. Virginia collects two types of income taxes. A withholding tax is the money held out of paychecks, while a non-withholding tax (also called a capital gains tax) is a levy on profits from selling personal assets such as stocks. Net withholding tax collections rose from $10.6 billion to $13.6 billion during the last four budget years—a 28.3% increase. Much of the increase came from salary growth among upper-income workers, according to a November 2022 report by the staff of the Virginia House Appropriations Committee. Gross non-withholding tax receipts rose from $3.5 billion to $6.8 billion—a 94.3% increase. The gain was primarily due to people cashing in profits from the soaring stock market of the last four years. Sales tax revenue increased from $3.5 billion to $4.6 billion over the last four budget years—a 31.4% increase. Much of the rise was caused by inflation and heightened demand for goods during the COVID-19 crisis, said Anne Oman, staff director of the state's House Appropriations Committee. Sales tax receipts in all states grew by about 30% during this period. Corporate income tax collections rose from $862 million to $2 billion over the same period—a 132% increase. Oman noted that uncertainty over inflation, recession, and the economic effects of COVID caused many businesses to hold onto profits instead of reinvesting them, resulting in greater corporate tax income. Corporate income tax revenue from all states combined grew by an estimated 177% during the same four years. Virginia's burgeoning tax revenues have not been unique. States have quirks that make it impossible to exactly compare their total general fund tax receipts. What they have in common, however, is that income, sales, and corporate taxes produce the vast majority of their proceeds. Virginia's revenue from those three levies increased by 46.1% over the last four years, slightly higher than the estimated 44.2% rise seen by all states combined. Youngkin's $1 billion in tax cuts would come on top of nearly $4 billion in tax cuts that went into effect in the second half of 2022. This boon allowed Youngkin and the General Assembly to agree on a budget last year that also raised spending and lifted Virginia's reserve funds to a record $2.6 billion. However, the gravy train began to slow in the latter half of 2022 and is expected to continue to do so this year due to uncertainty about rising interest rates, the stock market, and a possible recession, according to Virginia Secretary of Finance Stephen Cummings. Democrats have been skeptical about Youngkin's proposed tax cuts this year, saying the money is needed to improve programs. Youngkin stated that Virginia tax receipts in just the last four years alone have grown by 50%. State records show that general fund tax receipts have grown by 45.2% over the last four budget years. Therefore, Youngkin's claim, although credible, is slightly high. We rate Youngkin's statement as Mostly True. Correction, Jan. 25, 2023: This fact-check originally stated that PolitiFact Virginia made two attempts to contact Youngkin's office and did not receive a response. Our emails, it turns out, were mistakenly sent to the wrong web address. Our ruling is unchanged.

['Economy', 'State Budget', 'Taxes', 'Virginia']

True

The overtaxation of Virginians is something we can address here and now because we have seen the governments tax resource grow astronomically, Youngkin said Jan. 23 during aspeechat the Weinstein Jewish Community Center in Richmond. Receipts just in the last four years alone have grown 50%.We fact-checked the governors claim and found its close to the mark. Youngkin wants to cut levies that go to Virginias general fund which supports public education, public safety health programs and general government expenses. Those tax revenue grew by 45.2% during the past four budget years, according to statefinancialrecords.Virginia collected$19.9 billionin general fund taxes for the fiscal year that ran from the start of July 2017 to the end of June 2018. It took in$28.9 billionfor the budget year that ended in mid 2022. (Virginias fiscal year runs from July 1 to June 30.)Personal income taxesare by far the largest source of general fund money, kicking in about two-thirds of the revenue. Their net revenue grew over the last four budget years (fiscal 2019, 2020, 2021, 2022) from $14.1 billion to $20.4 billion a 44.7% increase. Nationally, state income tax receipts grew by anestimated36.7%over the same span, data from the National Association of State Budget Officers shows.Net withholding tax collections rose from $10.6 billion to $13.6 billion during the last four budget years a 28.3% increase. Much of the increase came from salary growth among upper income workers, according to a November 2022reportby the staff of the Virginia House Appropriations Committee.Sales taxrevenue increased from $3.5 billion to $4.6 billion over the last four budget years a 31.4% increase. Much of the rise was caused by inflation and a heightened demand for goods during the COVID-19 crisis, said Anne Oman, staff director of the states House Appropriations Committee. Sales tax receipts in all states grew byabout30%during the span.Corporate income taxcollections rose from $862 million to $2 billion over the period a 132% increase. Oman said uncertainty over inflation, recession and the economic effects of COVID caused many businesses to sit on profits instead of reinvesting them, creating greater corporate tax income. Corporate income tax revenue from all states combined grew by anestimated177%during the same four years.Virginias burgeoning tax revenues have not been unique. States have quirks that make it impossible to exactly compare their total general fund tax receipts. What they have in common, however, is that income, sales, corporate taxes produce the vast majority of their proceeds. Virginias evenue from those three levies increased by 46.1% over the last four years, slightly higher than theestimated44.2%rise seen by all states combined.Youngkins $1 billion in tax cuts would come on top of nearly $4 billion in tax cuts that went into effect in the second half of 2022. The boon allowed Youngkin and the General Assembly to agree on a budget last year that also raised spending and lifted Virginias reserve funds to a record$2.6 billion.But the gravy train began to slow in 2022s latter half and is expected to continue to do so this year because of uncertainty about rising interest rates, the stock market and a possible recession, according toVirginia Secretary of Finance Stephen Cummings.

Has the Legal Drinking Age Been Raised to 23?

['The legal drinking age has not been raised to 23.']

On 9 December 2015, a message claiming that the legal drinking age would be raised to 23 in February 2016 started circulating on Facebook: While the above-displayed Facebook message may appear atfirst glance as if it came from the news network CNN, that is not the case. This Facebook message was created by a prank website that creates links which resemble real news stories. However, when a user clicks on the link they are redirected to apage that informs them that the story was fake: Users are then prompted to share the joke with their friendson Facebook. Similar pranks have previously circulated on the internet, briefly convincing Facebook users that Taco Bell was closingandthat PepsiCo was discontinuing Mountain Dew. closing discontinuing [article-meta]

['share']

False

Similar pranks have previously circulated on the internet, briefly convincing Facebook users that Taco Bell was closingandthat PepsiCo was discontinuing Mountain Dew.

Islamic Justice — Boy Punished for Stealing Bread

['Photographs document a roadside stunt, not a Muslim boy having his arm crushed under a truck as a punishment for stealing bread.']

The photographs displayed above have been circulating on the Internet since at least 2004, usually in email forwards that place them in various Arab/Muslim areas (e.g., Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestinian territories) and claim that the boy pictured is being punished under a harsh Sharia law system that imposes a penalty grossly out of proportion to the nature of the crime (i.e., having his arm crushed under a vehicle because he stole a loaf of bread). These pictures originated with the Iranian news site PeykeIran, which, along with individuals who have witnessed similar scenes in other countries, confirmed that what the photographs actually depict is performers hustling money from onlookers by staging a common street act. In this act, a subject seemingly allows himself to be run over by a heavy vehicle and then emerges unscathed. This is a common performance, with variations executed by many magicians and accomplished through a variety of means, resulting in no lasting harm. The fact that the subject is a small boy who grimaces his way through the stunt is all part of the act, intended to elicit sympathy and extra cash from onlookers. (Despite his contorted facial expressions, the boy is not seriously or permanently injured by the process.) It is difficult to make any definitive statement about Sharia/Islamic law since customs and enforcement can vary from region to region. However, although the cutting off of hands may sometimes be the prescribed maximum penalty for cases of theft under the strictest interpretations of Sharia, Islamic law resources consistently note that such punishments shall not be applied to children who have not yet reached puberty (defined as the age of 15 for boys), nor for the theft of small-value items or food by the hungry. The maximum sentence for any violation of law is not applied in every case. In robbery and theft cases, for example, the maximum penalty of hand-cutting applies after considering many factors, such as the offender's track record and whether the theft was made for profit. In some cases, such as stealing food due to severe hunger or to prevent death, there may not be a penalty. A person's hand is not amputated when he steals less than the equivalent of 4.374 grams of gold or something that is deemed useless. The penalty for theft (when the above conditions are met) is that the offender's right arm is amputated. The photographs do not depict any form of amputation, and it is the child's left arm that goes under the wheels. Moreover, there are no police, judges, religious authorities, or other officials evident in any of the pictures, just a huckster with a hand-held microphone who drums up business and describes the action for the onlookers visible in the background of the first photo. (Also note the blanket placed under the boy's arm: something that is useful for a staged stunt but is unlikely to be provided or allowed by those intent on severely punishing a lawbreaker.) The versions of these photographs circulated via email generally leave out the last pictures of the original series, which show the same boy after the conclusion of the stunt.

['profit']

False

The above-displayed photographs have been circulating on the Internet since at least 2004, usually in e-mail forwards that set them in one of several Arab/Muslim areas (e.g., Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Palestinian territories) and claim that the boy pictured is being punished under a harsh Sharia law system that imposes a penalty grossly out of proportion to the nature of the crime (i.e., having his arm crushed under a vehicle because he stole a loaf of bread).These pictures originated with the Iranian news site PeykeIran, who (along with persons who have witnessed similar scenes in other countries) confirmed that what the photographs actually depict is performers hustling money from onlookers by staging a common street act, one in which a subject seemingly allows himself to be run over by a heavy vehicle and then emerges unscathed. This a common act, variations of which are performed by many magicians and accomplished through a variety of means, with no lasting harm done. That the subject is a small boy who grimaces his way through the stunt is all part of the act, intended to elicit sympathy and extra cash from onlookers. (Despite his contorted facial expressions, the boy is not seriously or permanently injured by the process.)It's difficult to make any definitive statement about Sharia/Islamic law since customs and enforcement can vary from region to region, but although the cutting off hands may sometimes be the prescribed maximum penalty for cases of theft under the strictest interpretations of Sharia, Islamic law resources consistently note that such punishments shall not be applied to children who have not yet reached puberty (which is defined as the age of 15 for boys), nor for the theft of small-value items or food by the hungry:

Is it Impossible to Cancel Recurring Donations to the Trump Campaign?

["A CNN reporter tweeted out a former Donald Trump supporter's claim that it was impossible to cancel recurring donations to the campaign once initiated, but it wasn't clear that was always the case."]

On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign: Jeremy Diamond INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016 Diamond's tweet sparked a number of articles and blog posts stating it was "impossible" to cancel recurring Trump campaign donations, based solely or primarily on the anecdotal, secondhand claim made in that tweet. Among the comments prompted by original tweet sent by Diamond were those left by other purported donors asserting that the claim wasn't exactly accurate: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016 @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016 August 6, 2016 A large number of commenters expressed skepticism about the report, given that the claim was anonymously sourced from a single individual: @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016 August 4, 2016 @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016 We were unable to turn up any reports about the issue that antedated Diamond's tweet. If any Trump donors had previously encountered difficulties canceling their recurring donations, they didn't seem to chatter very much about it on social media prior to 3 August 2016 (and ceasing to support Trump as a candidate is only one reason someone might seek to cancel a recurring payment). Diamond appeared to pass the baton on the story overall, updating followers later with a link to an article published by Mic: The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 @mic https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016 August 5, 2016 Diamond did not provide any further information about the claim, the claimant, or how he verified it before sharing it to Twitter. But Mic attempted to reproduce the problem on 4 August 2016 and gathered more information on the difficulty level of canceling recurring Trump donations. In a series of screenshots the site illustrated their findings, stating it was not possible to delete a stored credit card without replacing it with a separate valid credit card: After investigating, Mic can confirm that there is no easy option to stop recurring donations on Trump's donation site: We set up a recurring donation of $1 and found no button or other obvious way to cancel payments or remove a credit card from the system either on the homepage, the "update card" page, or in your contribution confirmation email. Once you're registered, if you try to change your payment information on Trump's site, you will see no option to remove your credit card only "update" it. Then, when you click on "update card," you see a page that allows you to alter your payment information but you cannot completely delete your credit card. You are forced to replace it with another valid card: Invalid numbers are rejected. One responder to the original tweet then objected to that claim, stating it was impossible to set up a recurring $1 donation: .@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE @JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016 August 7, 2016 However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation: enter Mic confirmed that if a putative donor set up an account, then it would be possible for that person to cancel a recurring donation made via Trump's web site: It turns out that there is a way to delete your card from the Trump campaign's system, but it seems you must have first registered an account and created a password: If you did not do so, there is no clear way to cancel your payment. Assuming you did create an account and have logged in, to stop your payment you must click the small gray question mark icon in the upper right corner of the donations page. Then you will see [a separate] screen. In order to delete your card, you must click "manage." Then will you be redirected to the website of the Trump campaign's vendor. There you must click "recurring plans," and only then can you cancel your monthly payment; notably, even after you cancel, there is still no obvious way to delete your card number without replacing it with another valid number. Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way. Revv However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments: notes If you have regular, automatic deductions from your checking account (to pay for expenses such as insurance premiums or utility bills), the EFTA allows you to stop those payments. First, notify the vendor. Next, tell your bank about your request at least three business days before the money is scheduled to be transferred. Your notice to the bank may be oral, but the institution may require you to provide a written follow-up within 14 days to ensure that no additional payments are made. If you fail to provide a written follow-up, the bank is no longer responsible for stopping future payments. Stopping an automatic, recurring payment on a credit card is different. Start by putting in your request with the vendor. But if the vendor continues to charge your credit card, contact your card issuer. You'll have 60 days to dispute the charge, starting when the card issuer sends you the statement with the charges. While it appears to be atypically difficult to cancel a recurring donation to the Trump campaign, it is certainly not impossible, as individuals who create an account can do so via the web interface. Overall, it seemed the problem related more to the interface of a third-party vendor (Revv) to whom the Trump campaign had outsourced donations and not to the campaign itself. Dennin, James. "Donald Trump's Campaign Website Won't Let Some Cancel Recurring Donations." Mic. 4 August 2016.

['insurance']

NEI

On 3 August 2016, CNN reporter Jeremy Diamond shared a screenshot via Twitter of an e-mail sent by a frustrated former Trump supporter, claiming that it was impossible for backers to cancel recurring donations to the Trump campaign:INBOX: Help, I set up a recurring contribution to Trump's campaign & want to cancel it: (cc: @realDonaldTrump) pic.twitter.com/TFOHhdZDlJ Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 4, 2016@JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Spreading bogus info. When you contribute, you get receipt with an email + tel number to call if you need help. M G (@MadaGasp) August 4, 2016@JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump now please stop spreading false information, its all in the email you receive when you contribute Brian (@Brian_with_a_B) August 6, 2016@JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump Cheap shot: we all know you can contact your bank or other form of payment you use, to cancel right away. Viktor Staudt (@ViktorStaudt) August 4, 2016@JDiamond1 @realDonaldTrump so exactly who was this unknown mystery person that went straight to a journalist? pic.twitter.com/R4h78829CP Patti Hannah (@b6sangel) August 7, 2016The folks at @mic took this ball and ran with it. Here's what they found: https://t.co/eTODFa4f3O https://t.co/cktSrf88Z2 Jeremy Diamond (@JDiamond1) August 5, 2016.@JDiamond1 You can't set up a $1.00 recurring amt.What else about this story is BS?@realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/kB4TalWOSE ValerieNoFux (@OPFergVal) August 7, 2016However, it appears that it is possible to enter any amount as a recurring donation:Per Mic's screenshots, that vendor was Revv, and we sent an e-mail inquiry to them to clarify whether it was possible to cancel the recurring payments some other way. However, even if the web site interface didn't allow for such a cancellation, the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) notes that the the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (EFTA) provides for consumers to cancel unwanted recurring payments:

Macy Neigh - Macy is neighing

['']

FACT CHECK: Did Macy's refuse to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan? Claim: Macy's refused to hire an applicant because she was a veteran who had served in Afghanistan. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2015] I just saw a post on Facebook stating that a veteran had applied to Macy's for a sales position and was told that because of her experience as a veteran she would not be hired. Origins: On 6 August 2015, the Facebook page of "Joe the Plumber" published the following status update and photograph: status update Someone at Macy's needs an attitude adjustment... Like if you agree. Share if you have more respect for our vets than Macy's does. No additional information was supplied by that Facebook page about the woman pictured (such as the specific Macy's involved, the date of the purported interview, or any other corroboration of the claim). Furthermore, the claim's appearance in August 2015 led people to believe that the individual depicted had been recently considered and presumably denied employment by the Macy's department store chain. This item was one of several "shunned serviceman" rumors that circulated in mid-2015, but it was over a year old at that point. A March 2014 article identified the woman as Army Specialist Kayla Reyes (then 21), and the Macy's location as one in Fresno, California, and according to the article, Reyes merely speculated on Instagram that her history of military service had adversely impacted her employment prospects, a claim she later appeared to downplay: shunned serviceman circulated article She says she interviewed for a sales associate position on Feb. 20. Reyes says once she told the hiring manager about her service overseas, the questions came back to Reyes's time at war. "Being that you've been over there, you wouldn't really know how to approach people," Reyes says that's what the manager told her. She continues, "Once a customer's in your face, you wouldn't know how to do it. You wouldn't know how to react." Reyes says she left the interview wondering if her military service did her a disservice when applying for a civilian job. A spokesperson for Macy's provided a comment for the March 2014 article (published less than a month after Reyes' Instagram post initially circulated) indicating that Reyes' application was still under active consideration at that time. By that point, Reyes maintained that she had accepted an alternate offer with the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. After the claim recirculated in August 2015, the Facebook page of Macy's was deluged in angry comments from users over the more than year-old allegation. In response to one of those comments, a representative for Macy's stated that Reyes had in fact been offered (but declined) the position for which she interviewed: stated Thank you for reaching out to Macy's and giving us the chance to hear from us directly. Macy's commitment to our veterans is sincere and strong. As a company that stands for inclusion in the workplace and our stores, we do not tolerate discrimination of any kind. We proudly employ thousands of veterans within our organization, as we know that veterans possess leadership skills that are an asset in a dynamic department store environment. As with any prospective employee, we actively looked for appropriate and available positions that would be best suited for Ms. Reyes' skills and experience level, and, in fact, identified and offered her a job at our store. We were disappointed when she declined. At Macy's, we have created a special Military Executive Development Program where we train veterans for key executive roles, giving them the tools and industry training to position them for success. In addition, Macy's has partnered with the Got Your 6 organization for a campaign in our stores to raise funds and awareness to assist veterans as they return to civilian life. Last year, we raised over $3.4 million with our customers and look forward to raising more funds this year. Thank you. -Carlos at Macy's Last updated: 6August 2015 Originally published: 6August 2015

['asset']

False

Origins: On 6 August 2015, the Facebook page of "Joe the Plumber" published the following status update and photograph:This item was one of several "shunned serviceman" rumors that circulated in mid-2015, but it was over a year old at that point. A March 2014 article identified the woman as Army Specialist Kayla Reyes (then 21), and the Macy's location as one in Fresno, California, and according to the article, Reyes merely speculated on Instagram that her history of military service had adversely impacted her employment prospects, a claim she later appeared to downplay:After the claim recirculated in August 2015, the Facebook page of Macy's was deluged in angry comments from users over the more than year-old allegation. In response to one of those comments, a representative for Macy's stated that Reyes had in fact been offered (but declined) the position for which she interviewed:

Says Texas charter schools get 100% state $/pupil funding while district schools (95% students) get about 1/3 funding from state w/ rest coming from local prop taxes (which is why those taxes are so high). Districts getting less b/c scarce $ going to charters.

[]

A Democratic legislator declared that state aid fully fuels Texas charter schools while schools serving the vast bulk of students field less money. State Rep.Donna Howardof Austin said in her July 18, 2018tweet: Here's the thing. In Tx, charters get 100% state $/pupil funding while district schools (95% students) get about 1/3 funding from state w/ rest coming from local prop taxes (which is why those taxes are so high). Districts getting less b/c scarce $ going to charters. Howard was reacting to a national Associated Pressnews storyon billionaires championing charter schools. Since 2006, the story says, philanthropists and their private foundations and charities--topped by the Walton Family Foundation, run by heirs to the Walmart fortune--gave almost half a billion dollars to 52 state-level charter support organizations to sustain, defend and expand the charter schools movement. Texas charter schools--public schools with charters run most often by private nonprofit entities--have boomed since the 1995 Legislature authorized them by law. Such schools must meet state-set academic accountability standards, but theyre exempted from other laws affecting districts such as teacher certification and elementary school class-size limits. To our inquiry, Bruce Marchand of theTexas Charter Schools Associationcalled Howards jam-packed claim factually squishy solid. The squishy part, Marchand said by email, is the implication that 100% funded charters have something to do with high property taxes and that districts get less money because that money is going to charters. Districts get less, Marchand said, because state dollars follow students based on where theyre enrolled. Lets break down Howards tweet by its factual elements. Howard said charter schools get all their funding from the state: Charter schools get nearly all their funding from state aid, Marchand agreed by phone, drawing 3 percent from grants and federal sources. That heavy state reliance is logical, Marchand and others said, because unlike districts, charter schools lack the authority to levy property taxes. According to a December 2017 Texas Education Agencydocument summarizing charter school funding, state aid to charter schools escalated from nearly $417 million for 2005-06 to about $2 billion in 2015-16. Howard said school districts serve 95 percent of students: Charter schools serve a growing handful of pupils--5.5 percent of Texas public school students in 2017, according to figures we fielded by email from the TEAs DeEtta Culbertson. That year, she said, 705 charter campuses enrolled 296,323 students--a doubling since 2011, according to an August 2018agency presentationnoted by Marchand. (The state caps the number of state-issued charters, but a charter-holder may open more than one school.) An implication: Districts in 2017 served 94.5 percent of public school students. Howard said districts get one-third of their aid from the state:Earlier this year, we reviewed Legislative Budget Board figures to conclude that in the 1980s, lawmakers voted for the state to cover 70 percent of theFoundation School Program, which is the states primary way of funding schools. State aid, we found, ended up covering a little more than half of related state-local costs. State aid covered 44 percent of such costs in 2016; its expected to cover 38 percent of such costs in 2019. Thats more than a third. When we sought Howards factual backup, Jacob Cottingham in her office responded with materials including aJanuary 2018 LBB chartdelivering percentages like what we previously reported. Cottingham also emailed us a spreadsheet isolating state aid going to districts alone.According to the sheet, which Cottingham said he built based on LBB data, in 2016, more than $17.8 billion in state aid sent to districts accounted for 39 percent of state spending on public education. The sheet says that in 2019, more than $15.7 billion in state funds projected to go to districts will account for 32 percent of state school aid. Howard said the states one-third share of what schools spend is why school property taxes are so high: To the contrary, we asked Howard, isnt it changes in the value of local property tax bases that drive how much state aid a district is entitled to receive? Howard replied with a statement noting that a districts per-pupil tax wealth is key to how much state aid flows. When students leave a district for a charter (or private school or drop out), the (districts) property wealth per student increases as there are fewer students, and the state's required minimum share to the district is decreased, Howard said. The TEAs Culbertson separately responded by email: One of the primary drivers of the Texas school finance system is student attendance. If a student leaves a school district for any reason, including moving out of state, enrolling in another school district, public charter school, or private school (including home school), the original school district would no longer incur the costs of educating that student, and the original school districts total funding entitlement would be reduced. Howard said districts get less money because dollars go to charter schools: Cottingham told us Howard reached that conclusion by reviewing changes in per-student state spending on charter schools and districts. Cottingham emailed us anLBB chartshowing Foundation School Program state aid per student enrolled in districts compared with charter schools from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2016 plus estimated and projected aid for fiscal 2017 through fiscal 2019. The chart shows charter schools consistently getting thousands of dollars more per student in average daily attendance: SOURCE: Chart,Foundation School Program State Aid and Average Daily Attendance for School Districts and Charter Schools, Fiscal Years 2010-19,Legislative Budget Board, 2018 (confirmed by email, R.J. DeSilva, communications officer, Legislative Budget Board, July 31, 2018) According to the chart, charter schools in 2016 fielded $8,956 in state aid per ADA and school districts on average drew $3,800--meaning charter schools got 136 percent of what districts drew.By our calculations, the chart shows charter schools getting 149 percent of what districts would have gotten in 2017 and 167 percent of what districts would get in 2018 and 190 percent of what districts would get in 2019. Cottingham told us the fact that state aid to districts goes up or down based on the value of local tax bases helps explain why districts are projected to get increasingly less in state aid than charter schools. Charter schools, he said, can count by law on getting each years full average adjusted state-aid allotment in contrast to districts whose allocations are affected by how much theyre expected to reap in property taxes. By phone, Amanda Brownson of the Texas Association of School Business Officials offered a similar analysis. Another facet noted by Cottingham: The state ponies up the full per-student entitlement cost of each student--costing the state more than each per-student payment sent to districts. Of late, the August 2018 TEA presentation says, charter schools draw an adjusted state allotment of $6,540--equivalent, the agency says, to what a small district receives. Meantime, the presentation says, more than 95 percent of students enrolled in districts are in districts getting less than $6,540 in state allotments. We also heard back from Greg Worthington, a University of Texas doctoral student. By email, Worthington saidlegislation revising the school finance system that passed into law in a summer 2017 special sessionwould result in numerous districts losing chunks of per-student aid as charter schools draw more. Asked how funding of charter schools results in less money for districts, Worthington offered adetailed replycentered on reductions in aid to districts caused by students transferring to charter schools. This shouldnt surprise, Worthington indicated, in that the concept of school choicepromulgatedby the late economist Milton Friedman relies on schools competing for funding tied to enrollment. Friedman said government might be responsible for funding schools, Worthington wrote, but he maintained it isnt supposed to administer education. School choice policies embraced by many ruling Republicans ultimately work to replace the public school system with a market-based education system, Worthington said. Our ruling Howard said Texas charter schools get all their per-student aid from the state while school districts, which serve 95 percent of students, get a third of their funding that way with the rest drawn from property taxes. Also, Howard said, districts get less because scarce dollars go to charter schools. Howards points about student enrollment and state funding going to charter schools and school districts hold up. Its also true that a student who leaves a district school to attend a charter school costs the district state aid while that student brings the charter school thousands of dollars more in per-pupil state aid than what the district would get. This dense tweet lacks the clarification that upticks or slides in local property values greatly affect whether a district faces ups or downs in state aid. 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.

['Education', 'State Budget', 'Texas']

True

State Rep.Donna Howardof Austin said in her July 18, 2018tweet: Here's the thing. In Tx, charters get 100% state $/pupil funding while district schools (95% students) get about 1/3 funding from state w/ rest coming from local prop taxes (which is why those taxes are so high). Districts getting less b/c scarce $ going to charters.Howard was reacting to a national Associated Pressnews storyon billionaires championing charter schools. Since 2006, the story says, philanthropists and their private foundations and charities--topped by the Walton Family Foundation, run by heirs to the Walmart fortune--gave almost half a billion dollars to 52 state-level charter support organizations to sustain, defend and expand the charter schools movement.To our inquiry, Bruce Marchand of theTexas Charter Schools Associationcalled Howards jam-packed claim factually squishy solid. The squishy part, Marchand said by email, is the implication that 100% funded charters have something to do with high property taxes and that districts get less money because that money is going to charters. Districts get less, Marchand said, because state dollars follow students based on where theyre enrolled.Howard said charter schools get all their funding from the state: Charter schools get nearly all their funding from state aid, Marchand agreed by phone, drawing 3 percent from grants and federal sources. That heavy state reliance is logical, Marchand and others said, because unlike districts, charter schools lack the authority to levy property taxes. According to a December 2017 Texas Education Agencydocument summarizing charter school funding, state aid to charter schools escalated from nearly $417 million for 2005-06 to about $2 billion in 2015-16.Howard said school districts serve 95 percent of students: Charter schools serve a growing handful of pupils--5.5 percent of Texas public school students in 2017, according to figures we fielded by email from the TEAs DeEtta Culbertson. That year, she said, 705 charter campuses enrolled 296,323 students--a doubling since 2011, according to an August 2018agency presentationnoted by Marchand. (The state caps the number of state-issued charters, but a charter-holder may open more than one school.) An implication: Districts in 2017 served 94.5 percent of public school students.Howard said districts get one-third of their aid from the state:Earlier this year, we reviewed Legislative Budget Board figures to conclude that in the 1980s, lawmakers voted for the state to cover 70 percent of theFoundation School Program, which is the states primary way of funding schools. State aid, we found, ended up covering a little more than half of related state-local costs. State aid covered 44 percent of such costs in 2016; its expected to cover 38 percent of such costs in 2019.Thats more than a third. When we sought Howards factual backup, Jacob Cottingham in her office responded with materials including aJanuary 2018 LBB chartdelivering percentages like what we previously reported. Cottingham also emailed us a spreadsheet isolating state aid going to districts alone.According to the sheet, which Cottingham said he built based on LBB data, in 2016, more than $17.8 billion in state aid sent to districts accounted for 39 percent of state spending on public education. The sheet says that in 2019, more than $15.7 billion in state funds projected to go to districts will account for 32 percent of state school aid.Cottingham emailed us anLBB chartshowing Foundation School Program state aid per student enrolled in districts compared with charter schools from fiscal 2010 through fiscal 2016 plus estimated and projected aid for fiscal 2017 through fiscal 2019. The chart shows charter schools consistently getting thousands of dollars more per student in average daily attendance:SOURCE: Chart,Foundation School Program State Aid and Average Daily Attendance for School Districts and Charter Schools, Fiscal Years 2010-19,Legislative Budget Board, 2018 (confirmed by email, R.J. DeSilva, communications officer, Legislative Budget Board, July 31, 2018)According to the chart, charter schools in 2016 fielded $8,956 in state aid per ADA and school districts on average drew $3,800--meaning charter schools got 136 percent of what districts drew.By our calculations, the chart shows charter schools getting 149 percent of what districts would have gotten in 2017 and 167 percent of what districts would get in 2018 and 190 percent of what districts would get in 2019.We also heard back from Greg Worthington, a University of Texas doctoral student. By email, Worthington saidlegislation revising the school finance system that passed into law in a summer 2017 special sessionwould result in numerous districts losing chunks of per-student aid as charter schools draw more.Asked how funding of charter schools results in less money for districts, Worthington offered adetailed replycentered on reductions in aid to districts caused by students transferring to charter schools.This shouldnt surprise, Worthington indicated, in that the concept of school choicepromulgatedby the late economist Milton Friedman relies on schools competing for funding tied to enrollment. Friedman said government might be responsible for funding schools, Worthington wrote, but he maintained it isnt supposed to administer education. School choice policies embraced by many ruling Republicans ultimately work to replace the public school system with a market-based education system, Worthington said.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.

Alternative phrasing: Boeing's new aircraft model, the 797

['Viral image dating from 2006 purports to show a new Boeing "797" blended-wing airliner.']

Although Boeing may someday introduce a commercial airliner designated with the number 797, and although the company's Phantom Works (advanced research and development) unit may have researched the potential of blended-wing-body (BWB) aircraft design for military applications, Boeing is not currently developing a blended-wing aircraft for commercial use, nor does the image displayed below represent any aircraft (or prototype thereof) designed or produced by that company: Phantom Works researched BWB Boeing to take on Airbus with (1000 seat) giant 797 Blended Wing plane Boeing is preparing a 1000 passenger jet that could reshape the Air travel industry for the next 100 years. The radical Blended Wing design has been developed by Boeing in cooperation with the NASA Langley Research Centre.The mammoth plane will have a wing span of 265 feet compared to the 747s 211 feet,and is designed to fit within the newly created terminals used for the 555 seat Airbus A380, which is 262 feet wide.The new 797 is in direct response to the Airbus A380 which has racked up 159 orders, but has not yet flown any passengers. Boeing decide to kill its 747X stretched super jumbo in 2003 after little interest was shown by airline companies, but has continued to develop the ultimate Airbus crusher 797 for years at its Phantom Works research facility in Long Beach, Calif. The Airbus A380 has been in the works since 1999 and has accumulated $13 billion in development costs, which gives Boeing a huge advantage now that Airbus has committed to the older style tubular aircraft for decades to come. There are several big advantages to the blended wing design, the most important being the lift to drag ratio which is expected to increase by an amazing 50%, with overall weight reduced by 25%, making it an estimated 33% more efficient than the A380, and making Airbuss $13 billion dollar investment look pretty shaky. High body rigidity is another key factor in blended wing aircraft, It reduces turbulence and creates less stress on the air frame which adds to efficiency, giving the 797 a tremendous 8800 nautical mile range with its 1000 passengers flying comfortably at mach .88 or 654 mph (+-1046km/h) cruising speed another advantage over the Airbus tube-and-wing designed A380s 570 mph (912 km/h)The exact date for introduction is unclear, yet the battle lines are clearly drawn in the high-stakes war for civilian air supremacy. This image is a conceptual picture from a Popular Science article about the future of aviation (one which proved so popular that it was made available for purchase in poster form) and has been circulated since at least early 1996 in fictitious articles proclaiming it to be Boeing's response to competition from the Airbus A380 in the commercial airliner business. articles A Boeing company blog produced by Randy Baseler, former vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, tackled this subject back in November 2006: tackled From Boulder, Colorado, Walter brings up a topic we frequently get questioned about: the "blended wing" concept. Earlier this year an image of a blended wing "797" made the rounds of the Internet, and got speculation swirling that Boeing has this in the works. Is there any truth to the emails showing a blended wing 1,000-passenger concept that is dubbed a Boeing 797? Makes sense that the airline industry would head this direction some day, but it just sounds too good to be true! Yes, too good to be true, indeed, Walter. Someone was having a bit of fun with PhotoShop perhaps. Boeing is not planning to build a 1,000 passenger commercial airplane dubbed the "797," based on the blended wing body (BWB) concept or any other futuristic concept. It's certainly not in our commercial market forecast, which goes out for 20 years. We think the commercial airplane market favors point-to-point routes, and we're developing the 787 as the perfect match to help meet that demand. Glen, from Warrington, Pennsylvania brings up the same subject: Is there a blended wing in the works? Are there floor plans of it? No, not for a commercial airplane. But having said that, I should point out that Boeing Phantom Works, the company's advanced research and development group, tells me it is conducting research on the BWB concept with NASA and the U.S. Air Force. They're working to better understand what they describe as the BWB's "fundamental edge-of-the-envelope flight dynamics" and structural characteristics. The Air Force is interested in the BWB concept for its potential as a flexible, long-range, high-capacity military aircraft. As part of the research, Phantom Works has built a scale model for wind-tunnel testing of the concept's low-speed flying characteristics. There also are plans to flight-test the scale model next year. In 2017, Boeing released a teaser image at the Paris Air Show hyping a medium-range, "middle-market airplane" under development that industry observers unofficially christened "Boeing 797," but that was neither the real name of the aircraft nor did the visualization include a blended-wing design. image Baseler, Randy. "Air Mail." Randy's Journal. 1 November 2006. Ostrower, Jon. "World Gets First Peek at Boeing '797.'" CNN Money. 20 June 2017. Boeing. "Boeing to Begin Ground Testing of X-48B Blended Wing Body Concept." 27 October 2006. NewTechSpy. "Boeing to Take on Airbus with (1,000 Seat) Giant 797 Blended Wing Plane." 24 April 2006.

['interest']

False

Although Boeing may someday introduce a commercial airliner designated with the number 797, and although the company's Phantom Works (advanced research and development) unit may have researched the potential of blended-wing-body (BWB) aircraft design for military applications, Boeing is not currently developing a blended-wing aircraft for commercial use, nor does the image displayed below represent any aircraft (or prototype thereof) designed or produced by that company:This image is a conceptual picture from a Popular Science article about the future of aviation (one which proved so popular that it was made available for purchase in poster form) and has been circulated since at least early 1996 in fictitious articles proclaiming it to be Boeing's response to competition from the Airbus A380 in the commercial airliner business.A Boeing company blog produced by Randy Baseler, former vice president of marketing for Boeing Commercial Airplanes, tackled this subject back in November 2006:In 2017, Boeing released a teaser image at the Paris Air Show hyping a medium-range, "middle-market airplane" under development that industry observers unofficially christened "Boeing 797," but that was neither the real name of the aircraft nor did the visualization include a blended-wing design.

Rep. Clyde, Officer Fanone, and the Handshake That Wasn't

['D.C. Police Officer Michael Fanone was beaten and tased by Jan. 6 rioters, suffering a traumatic brain injury and a heart attack.']

In mid-June 2021, viral social media posts claimed a U.S. Republican congressman who has previously been accused of attempting to downplay the seriousness of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack refused to shake hands with a police officer who had tried that day to protect the federal building from the violent mob of Donald Trump supporters. seriousness of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack Donald Trump Before we unpack that accusation, some context: On June 15, the House of Representatives approved a proposal on a 406-21 vote to award the highest congressional honor to the Capitol Police and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for protecting the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack. Jan. 6 attack. Those who voted "no" on the measure to recognize officers with the Congressional Gold Medal were all Republicans who said they had qualms with describing the events of Jan. 6 as an "insurrection" or the Capitol as a "temple of democracy," among other issues, according to news reports and the congressional voting record. Republicans news reports congressional voting record The day after that vote, a group including MPD officer Michael Fanone, who was injured during the Jan. 6 attack, visited the Capitol to try to meet with the above-mentioned Republicans and share his experience of trying to fend off the mob. On an elevator during that June 16 tour, Fanone said, he introduced himself to Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde who is one of the aforementioned 21 Republicans and the congressman did not shake his hand. Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat who represents a portion of California's Bay Area, was among the first people to report the alleged elevator encounter on Twitter. Twitter "Fanone introduced himself as 'someone who fought to defend the Capitol' and put out his hand. Clyde refused to shake it," he tweeted June 16 around 3:30 p.m. EST. Multiple news outlets ran with the story, including The Washington Post, which claimed in a headline: "GOP congressman refuses to shake hands with D.C. police officer who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6." Multiple news outlets claimed in a headline A spokesperson for Swalwell told Snopes that Fanone had called the congressman "immediately" after the run-in occured to share what had happened. Then, after Swalwell's tweet went viral, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican serving Illinois, said he called the police officer, and he confirmed with him the alleged event took place. said As posts about the interaction spread rapidly online, Fanone went on CNN's "Don Lemon Tonight" to explain the incident for himself: CNN's Fanone: I saw Congressman Clyde standing outside of an elevator. I was there with also [Capitol Police Officer] Harry Dunn, who accompanied me throughout the Capitol, went into the elevator. I told, I, you know, greeted Congressman Clyde. I was very cordial. Harry Dunn I extended my hand to shake his hand. He just stared at me. I asked him if he was going to shake my hand, and he told me that he didn't know who I was. So, I introduced myself. I said that I was officer Micheal Fanone; that I was a D.C. Metropolitan police officer who fought on Jan. 6 to defend the Capitol and, as a result, I suffered a traumatic brain injury, as well as a heart attack, after having been tased numerous times at the base of my skull, as well as being severely beaten. At that point, the Congressman turned away from me, pulled out a cell phone. It looked like he was attempting to pull up like an audio recording app on his phone and, again, like never acknowledged me at any point. As soon as the elevator's doors open, he ran as quickly as he could like a coward. Lemon: Like a coward, didn't shake your hand. Fanone: Correct, absolutely not. In summary, Fanone told the news anchor that he extended his hand to Clyde, and the Congressman responded saying he didn't recognize the police officer. After that, Fanone said he introduced himself as a "police officer who fought on Jan. 6 to defend the Capitol," and then Clyde allegedly "turned away." The police officer likened the interaction to "Clyde giving the middle finger to myself and every other member of [MPD] and U.S. Capitol Police that responded that day," according to a recording of his CNN appearance. No photo or video evidence existed to corroborate Fanone's story. However, Harry Dunn, a 13-year veteran of the Capitol Police, told Snopes he was in the elevator, too, and verified the key points of Fanone's CNN interview in an email to Snopes, displayed below: In other words, he told us that both police officers "said hello" to the Congressman and when Fanone extended his hand, "Rep Clyde looked down at Mike's hand and looked away almost immediately." Dunn's account of what happened next matched Fanone's (Fanone asked Clyde if he was going to shake his hand, Clyde said he did not know who he was, and Fanone introduced himself). "As Mike was doing that, Clyde kept inching as close to the wall as he could," Dunn told Snopes. "He was fidgeting with his phone and ... opened the video recorder mode and started to record. Mike and I looked at each other and shook our heads and we both said 'unbelievable.'" Snopes contacted Clyde's office for his response to the accusations, but we have not heard back. (The congressman also did not respond to other news media, including The Washington Post, Business Insider, and CNN.) The Washington Post Business Insider CNN Nothing leads us to believe Fanone's story isn't accurate, and Dunn's corroboration as an eyewitness is enough to confirm the claim as true. The caveat, however, is that without the congressman's own explanation for his actions, all possible explanations for why he did not appear to accept Fanone's greeting are subjective. We only have Fanone's and Dunn's word for the claim that he was fully aware of the police officer's invitation to shake hands and consciously rejected it. It's possible that Clyde did not hear or understand Fanone's introduction, for whatever reasons. Perhaps he was wearing wireless headphones or another Bluetooth device that prevented him from hearing, for example. Our invitation to Clyde to tell his side of the story still stands. This report was updated to include comments from Rep. Eric Swalwell's spokesperson.

['share']

True

In mid-June 2021, viral social media posts claimed a U.S. Republican congressman who has previously been accused of attempting to downplay the seriousness of the Jan. 6 Capitol attack refused to shake hands with a police officer who had tried that day to protect the federal building from the violent mob of Donald Trump supporters.Before we unpack that accusation, some context: On June 15, the House of Representatives approved a proposal on a 406-21 vote to award the highest congressional honor to the Capitol Police and the D.C. Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) for protecting the U.S. Capitol during the Jan. 6 attack.Those who voted "no" on the measure to recognize officers with the Congressional Gold Medal were all Republicans who said they had qualms with describing the events of Jan. 6 as an "insurrection" or the Capitol as a "temple of democracy," among other issues, according to news reports and the congressional voting record.Rep. Eric Swalwell, a Democrat who represents a portion of California's Bay Area, was among the first people to report the alleged elevator encounter on Twitter. Multiple news outlets ran with the story, including The Washington Post, which claimed in a headline: "GOP congressman refuses to shake hands with D.C. police officer who protected the Capitol on Jan. 6."Then, after Swalwell's tweet went viral, Rep. Adam Kinzinger, a Republican serving Illinois, said he called the police officer, and he confirmed with him the alleged event took place.As posts about the interaction spread rapidly online, Fanone went on CNN's "Don Lemon Tonight" to explain the incident for himself:Fanone: I saw Congressman Clyde standing outside of an elevator. I was there with also [Capitol Police Officer] Harry Dunn, who accompanied me throughout the Capitol, went into the elevator. I told, I, you know, greeted Congressman Clyde. I was very cordial.Snopes contacted Clyde's office for his response to the accusations, but we have not heard back. (The congressman also did not respond to other news media, including The Washington Post, Business Insider, and CNN.)

Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history.

[]

Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone. But with the states affordable housing crisis and deep poverty, Eastin believes thats not happening now, especially for young people. People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote. Eastin continued: Ninety percent of people born in the 1940s ended up doing better financially than their parents. But those born in the 1980s, the much-maligned Millennials, have only a 50-50 chance of doing better (financially) than their parents, despite being the best-educated generation in our history. Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s. We wanted to know whether Eastin was right about this dramatic decline in children doing better than their parents. We set out on a fact check. Eastins background Eastin is one of several Democrats vying to succeed Gov. Jerry Brown in 2018. She served in the State Assembly from 1986 to 1994 and then as State Superintendent of Public Instruction from 1995 to 2003. She was the first, and remains, the only woman to hold that position. In addition to her desire to create a more equitable economy, Eastin has advocated for greater investment in education, the adoption of universal health care and continued work on climate change during her run for governor. Our research We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Its findings, indeed, show that the fraction of children earning more than their parents has plummeted -- from 90 percent for children born in the 1940s to 50 percent for those born in the 1980s. The study accounted for inflation, taxes and other changes between the generations. Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project Reached by email this week, Chetty told us Eastins characterization of this trend appears accurate. David Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion. The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33. That was slightly higher than the percentages for men and women at the same age from Baby Boomer to Generation X populations. Inside the study While Eastin appears to have correctly represented the reports findings, we wanted to know how the Stanford researchers came to their conclusions and whether other researchers agreed with them. Grusky told us the report used millions of Internal Revenue Service records and Census data to compare income between parents and children. The report specifically looked at people born between 1940 and 1984 and measured household income for parents and children when both were 30 years old. Even after accounting for changes between the generations, such as millennials entering the workforce at an older age than their parents, Grusky said the findings on upward mobility did not change significantly. Only slightly more than 50 percent of children at age 40 had higher income compared with their parents income when their parents were 30 years old. Unequal growth The Stanford study also accounted for the rapid economic growth experienced during the Baby Boomer generation, when the nations post-World War II economy created a surge of new jobs and industries. Assuming both generations had experienced the same economic growth rates, Grusky said only 62 percent of millennials would do better than their parents. The key factor holding back broader financial success of this younger generation, the report concluded, was todays inequality of growth. Financial success, Grusky said, has become concentrated among a smaller share of families compared with the recent past. Ensuring that financial success is distributed more widely would make a lot of headway toward millennials doing better than their parents in future years, the researcher added. The report found declines in upward mobility for millennials across all 50 states. The biggest drops took place in Rust Belt states such as Ohio, Illinois and Michigan, Grusky said. Millennials in states such as California, New York and Massachusetts saw, on average, less substantial declines. SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity Project For this study, Grusky said, researchers were not able to factor in student debt or address how people of different races and ethnicities are affected by the mobility trends. Behind the starting line Tom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data. Factors from the Great Recession to student debt to globalization have all put millennials behind the starting line compared with their parents, he said. That is a cornerstone of the American Dream, Allison continued, that if you work hard and play by the rules, then you can exceed the living standards of your parents. And weve seen a precipitous decline in that. Our ruling Delaine Eastin recently claimed millennials have only a 50-50 chance of doing better financially than their parents, while those born in the 1940s had a 90 percent chance of doing better than their parents. Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940. Stanford researchers found stronger economic growth combined with a broader distribution of that growth during the Baby Boomer generation drove greater upward mobility for people born in the 1940s. They said financial success has become more concentrated in recent decades, leaving millennials with much lower odds of doing better than their parents. Even after accounting for changes, such as inflation and millennials starting work at older ages, they found todays younger generation faces comparatively smaller odds of earning more than their parents. Other research, notably by the advocacy group Young Invincibles, agreed with the Stanford findings. We rate her claim 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.

['Economy', 'Education', 'Jobs', "The 2018 California Governor's Race", 'California']

True

Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinsays she wants to create an economy that works for everyone.People become cynical, she wrote in an Oct. 11, 2017op-edin theSan Francisco Chroniclebecause the path to a brighter future is becoming more remote.Millennialsare typically considered the children of the Baby Boomers and older Gen Xers. They were born between the early 1980s and the late 1990s.We asked Eastins campaign for evidence supporting her claim about millennials and their financial prospects. Jon Murchinson, her campaign spokesman, told us the statement is based on conclusions in aDecember 2016 studyby the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.The study is called The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940.Its basically a coin flip as to whether youll do better than your parents, Stanford economistRaj Chetty, one of the studys authors, said in anews releaseannouncing the studys publication in December 2016.SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity ProjectDavid Grusky, the studys co-author and director of Stanfords Center on Poverty and Inequality, added that Eastins statement is a fair summary of our headline conclusion.The Stanford study doesnt examine whether millennials are the best-educated generation in our history. That part of Eastins statement, however, was substantiated in a recentsurveyby the Pew Research Center. It found 27 percent of millennial women and 21 percent of millennial men had completed at least a bachelors degree by age 33.SOURCE:The Equality of Opportunity ProjectTom Allison, deputy policy and research director atYoung Invincibles, said the Stanford research is right in line with theconclusions reachedby his Washington D.C.-based group. Young Invincibles advocates for expanding economic opportunities for young adults and encouraging them to get involved in the political process. Allison said the Stanford study is both transparent and relies on credible public data.Her claim is supported by a 2016 Stanford study, The Fading American Dream: Trends in Absolute Income Mobility since 1940.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Before I was state treasurer, my Rhode Island business helped create over 1,000 jobs.

[]

In her "Back To Work" campaign ad, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo, one of four Democrats running for governor, stated that her former venture capital firm, Point Judith Capital, helped create more than 1,000 jobs while she was a partner. She made the same claim while campaigning for treasurer in the 2010 election. (Raimondo left the firm the day she took office; her investments there are held in a blind trust. The company has since relocated to Boston.) The ad shows Raimondo at Nabsys, a biomedical company in Providence. "Before I was State Treasurer, my Rhode Island business helped create over 1,000 jobs, including here at Nabsys, a biomedical company," Raimondo said. "As governor, I'll use this as a model for how we create manufacturing jobs. I'll bring colleges and industry together to develop new products in marine science, green technology, and medical devices, and to train our workers to fill those jobs. We need to get Rhode Islanders back to work." This week, Raimondo reiterated that claim in a new TV ad about how she helped bring back Narragansett Beer, originally brewed in Rhode Island until the brewery closed for good in 1983. ("I helped create over a thousand jobs, from high tech to making beer.") Before we get started, let's be clear about one thing: venture capital firms such as Point Judith are not in the business of creating jobs. Their mission is to make money for their investors—and themselves. They do so by raising money from entities such as private investors and public pension funds, and then investing it in startup companies, hoping for a big return if those companies take off. If the companies succeed and grow, they add jobs, but that's not the goal of the venture capitalists. To support her claim, Raimondo sent us a list of 21 companies that Point Judith Capital invested in and how many jobs those investments—and the company's efforts—helped create during the time she was a partner. They add up to 1,063. The list was produced by Point Judith Capital in late 2010, in preparation for her run for treasurer. We also interviewed Raimondo. She described Point Judith Capital's role as an early-stage investor. "Typically, you sit on the board of the company, provide a lot of hand-holding and strategic advice, help recruit people, and get the bank loan. It's hands-on. That's why we say we helped create those jobs. We had to have invested money in the company, which means we had an ownership stake in the company. In every case, we either had a board seat and additionally were just very involved in building the business, writing the business plan, and helping to get customers," Raimondo said. Initially, she stated that the investment was more than two million in each of those companies. On Wednesday, Raimondo's campaign manager Eric Hyers said Raimondo had misspoken. The investments were all at least six figures; they ranged from roughly $400,000 to $2 million or more. Raimondo noted that many of the companies have expanded and added jobs since then. Next, we attempted to call all 21 companies. Many were from out of state. Some had been bought out, and we were unable to reach the principals who worked there when Point Judith Capital was involved. At least one appears to have since closed. Of the representatives of seven companies we reached, all essentially confirmed Raimondo's claims, representing roughly 480 jobs. In one case, the job number appeared to fall slightly short; in another, a CEO gave Raimondo credit for more than the number of jobs she cited. We spoke with Mark Hellendrung, president of Narragansett Brewing Co. The company is based in Providence. Hellendrung said the beer is now brewed in Rochester, N.Y., Pawcatuck, Conn., and Westport, Mass. Test batches have been brewed locally in Rhode Island. Raimondo claimed Point Judith helped create 10 jobs there and invested more than $1 million. Hellendrung confirmed that Point Judith Capital helped launch the company (which put the famous Narragansett lager beer back on the shelves) with slightly less than $2 million in venture capital nine years ago and active involvement. "We've got over 10 full-time people, and routinely we've got over 20 part-time people that work promotions and events. It's been a labor of love and a ton of fun, and Gina was very helpful in that process," Hellendrung said. We spoke with Michael O'Neil Jr., founder and CEO of GetWellNetwork, a health care technology company headquartered in Maryland. Raimondo claimed Point Judith Capital helped create 121 jobs there. "She's totally correct," O'Neil said. "Gina and I met just as the company was getting started. Her leadership helped us get off the ground and helped get hundreds of jobs. Those included software engineers and project managers; others were on the services side," O'Neil said. Donna Dooley, chief financial officer at MedOptions, said that the 185 jobs that Raimondo credits Point Judith Capital with helping to create sounds accurate. Dooley joined MedOptions in 2011, the year after Raimondo left Point Judith Capital, and by then it was about 250 employees, she said. MedOptions provides behavioral health services in southern New England and the Mid-Atlantic. "I know that Point Judith Capital and another investment company put money in. I do think it's fair to say that there was a fair amount of job creation at that time," Dooley said. Steven J. Tallarida, co-founder of the former Spirus Medical, said Raimondo probably sold herself short by listing nine as the number of jobs Point Judith Capital helped create at that medical device company. "It was probably around 20," Tallarida said in a phone interview. "Those included research and development, manufacturing, and sales jobs. Point Judith Capital invested a couple of million. Raimondo sat on the board, and she would give governance on how to do things," Tallarida said. (The Massachusetts-based company was sold in 2011 to the Tokyo-based Olympus Corp.) Genevieve Thiers, who co-founded Sittercity, wrote in an email that Point Judith Capital put in $2.5 million and led their Series A round. "Due to them and the other $2.5 million, we were able to grow from 20 employees to about 80." (Raimondo credited her former company with helping to create 80 jobs at Sittercity, a nationwide babysitter-matching website). Thiers added, "That money did not start the company, but it was needed for a pivotal stage in growth." Thiers has since left the company but remains on the board. Dr. Barrett Bready, Nabsys co-founder and CEO, said in an email that Point Judith Capital was the first venture capital firm to invest in the company, and the firm has continued to invest in subsequent financing rounds. Raimondo formerly held a board seat. Nabsys currently has 40 employees, the number Raimondo credits her former company with helping to create. Bob Lentz, founder of the former PermissionTV in Waltham, Mass., wrote in an email that Point Judith Capital was actively involved. Raimondo said her firm helped create 40 jobs there. Lentz wrote, "It's been a few years, but the numbers sound right." (PermissionTV has been relaunched as VisibleGains). Our ruling: Gina Raimondo said her former firm, Point Judith Capital, helped create more than 1,000 jobs when she was a partner there. She produced a list of 21 companies and a precise number of jobs. We reached representatives of seven companies—most of them co-founders and/or CEOs. They confirmed that Point Judith Capital invested several million dollars—give or take—in each case; held board positions and, as such, helped create jobs. The job numbers added up to roughly 480 at those companies. While we were unable to reach all the companies Raimondo listed, the responses from the companies we did reach supported her qualified claim that Point Judith helped create 1,000 jobs. We rate Raimondo's claim True.

['Rhode Island', 'Candidate Biography', 'Economy', 'Jobs', 'Message Machine 2014']

True

In herBack To Workcampaign ad, General Treasurer Gina Raimondo, one of four Democrats running for governor, stated that her former venture capital firm, Point Judith Capital, helped create more than 1,000 jobs when she was partner.The ad shows Raimondo atNabsys, a biomedical company in Providence.This week, Raimondo reiterated that claimin a new TV adabout how she helped bring back Narragansett Beer, originally brewed in Rhode Island until the brewery closed for good in 1983. (I helped create over a thousand jobs, from high tech to making beer )We spoke with Mark Hellendrung, president ofNarragansett Brewing Co. The company is based in Providence. Hellendrung said the beer is now brewed in Rochester, N.Y., Pawcatuck, Conn., Westport, Mass. Test batches have been brewed locally in Rhode Island.We spoke with Michael ONeil Jr., founder and CEO ofGetWellNetwork, a health care technology company headquartered in Maryland. Raimondo claimed Point Judith Capital helped create 121 jobs there.Genevieve Thiers,who cofoundedSittercity, wrote in an email that Point Judith Capital put in $2.5 million and led our Series A round. Due to them and the other $2.5 million we were able to grow from 20 employees to about 80. (Raimondo credited her former company with helping to create 80 jobs at Sittercity, a nationwide babysitter-matching website).Dr. Barrett Bready,Nabsyscofounder and CEO, said in an email that Point Judith Capital was the first venture capital firm to invest in the company, and the firm has continued to invest in subsequent financing rounds. Raimondo formerly held a board seat.(If you have a claim you'd like us to check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

Has California declared that it intends to provide COVID-19 relief funds to undocumented residents while also laying off first responders?

['A meme linked two separate events together to foment political controversy.']

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 In late May 2020, social media users shared a meme that contained a misleading claim about the state of California. The meme said the state had announced it would give undocumented residents a stimulus payment on the same day it said it would lay off first responders due to diminished state funds resulting from the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, implying the two events are causally linked. California Gov. Gavin Newsom on April 15, 2020, acknowledged undocumented residents paid $2.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2019. He then announced the state would draw up a total of $125 million sourced from charitable donations and taxpayer funds to provide $500 stimulus payments to those residents. That was because they didn't qualify to receive federal stimulus checks under the CARES Act, a relief package meant to blunt the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. acknowledged CARES Act This announcement was unrelated to another statement Newsom made more than a month later. In the latter, he urged the federal government to provide financial assistance to states and local governments struggling with economic shortfalls to their operating budgets due to forced business closures during the pandemic. In an interview on CNN on May 21, Newsom stated that without federal help, cities and counties may be forced to lay off first responders. interview "The next time they want to salute our heroes, our first responders, our police officers and firefighters, consider the fact that they are the first ones to be laid off by cities and counties," Newsom said when asked by CNN host Jake Tapper what would happen if the federal government failed to bail out states and local governments. "The folks who are out there, the true heroes of this pandemic, are health care workers and nurses. Those county health systems have been ravaged, their budgets have been devastated and depleted, the budget accounts depleted since this pandemic." Budgets that deal with first responders like police, firefighters, and paramedics are generally administered by local governments, meaning it would be cities and counties in California, not the state itself, that would have discretion over whether or when to cut those services. Furthermore, Newsom didn't "announce" such layoffs would take place; he simply suggested cuts may occur in the absence of intervention from the federal government to financially shore up local governments. As of late May, California was facing a $54 billion budget shortfall resulting from economic fallout of stay-at-home orders that forced shuttering of most commerce beginning in mid-March, in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19 disease. The state one year earlier had a surplus of $21 billion. $54 billion In sum, Newsom didn't "announce" layoffs for first responders but instead projected that layoffs at the local level were a looming possibility. He also didn't make the statement on the same day that he announced California would commit $125 million ($75 million of which would come from taxpayers) to give undocumented state residents $500 stimulus payments. The two events are unrelated, although the meme attempted to link them causally. We therefore rate this claim Lightman, David."Fact Check: Gavin Newsom Warns of Layoffs for Police, Firefighters. Is He Exaggerating?" Sacramento Bee.21 May 2020. CNN."Newsom Warns of Police, Fire Layoffs in California." 21 May 2020. Associated Press."California Announces $125 Million Fund for Undocumented Immigrants Impacted by Coronavirus." 15 April 2020. Associated Press."California Faces a Staggering $54 Billion Budget Deficit Due to Economic Devastation from Coronavirus." 7 May 2020.

['budget']

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. California Gov. Gavin Newsom on April 15, 2020, acknowledged undocumented residents paid $2.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2019. He then announced the state would draw up a total of $125 million sourced from charitable donations and taxpayer funds to provide $500 stimulus payments to those residents. That was because they didn't qualify to receive federal stimulus checks under the CARES Act, a relief package meant to blunt the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.This announcement was unrelated to another statement Newsom made more than a month later. In the latter, he urged the federal government to provide financial assistance to states and local governments struggling with economic shortfalls to their operating budgets due to forced business closures during the pandemic. In an interview on CNN on May 21, Newsom stated that without federal help, cities and counties may be forced to lay off first responders.As of late May, California was facing a $54 billion budget shortfall resulting from economic fallout of stay-at-home orders that forced shuttering of most commerce beginning in mid-March, in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19 disease. The state one year earlier had a surplus of $21 billion.

Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses many of them thousands and thousands of dollars.

[]

President Donald Trump stated that the tax bill passed in December has already led to millions of workers receiving bonuses. "Since we passed tax cuts, over 3 million workers have gotten tax cut bonuses, many of them thousands and thousands of dollars," Trump said during the State of the Union on January 30. In December, Trump signed a bill into law that lowered the corporate tax rate from 35 to 21 percent. Trump's numbers echo the findings of a conservative group that compiled company announcements about bonuses; however, the majority of these bonuses appeared to be $1,000 or less, not the thousands and thousands Trump mentioned. Trump's figures align with a compilation by Americans for Tax Reform, a group founded by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. Americans for Tax Reform advocates against tax increases and supported the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in December. The group used company press releases and media reports to compile a list of announced bonuses or other financial benefits. They found that as of the day of Trump's State of the Union speech, at least 3 million Americans were receiving special tax reform bonuses. American Airlines, FedEx, Home Depot, Nationwide Insurance, Walmart, and the Walt Disney Company were among the companies that announced bonuses. In total, at least 286 companies announced wage and salary increases, bonuses, or 401(k) match increases, or, in the case of public utility companies, lower rates. Trump claimed that many of the bonuses were thousands of dollars per worker, but it appears that the majority of the company announcements were for bonuses of $1,000 or less. The list includes about nine companies that announced bonuses of $2,000, including Fiat Chrysler's 60,000 employees. Some companies were very clear about who deserves credit for the bonuses. The Hammock Source in North Carolina was one of many companies to announce employee bonuses following the passage of the tax bill. The company distributed the bonuses in envelopes that read, "Trump Republican tax reform bonus." "We at The Hammock Source want to continue to invest in the people that have made our business successful," CEO Walter Perkins III said in a press release on January 25. "President Trump's tax cuts will provide the funds to make this desire a reality. We hope that other businesses will follow our lead and give back to their employees as well." The Americans for Tax Reform analysis focused only on recent bonus announcements and did not include a historical comparison to determine how many of these companies had given bonuses in recent years. It's not unusual for many companies to give bonuses. Experts say that Trump's claim lacks important context, as the bonuses only affect a small percentage of American workers. Willis Towers Watson, a global human resources consulting firm, surveyed 333 large and midsize employers in January to ask about their plans related to the tax bill. The survey showed that about 6 percent said they provided profit sharing or a bonus in 2017, and 5 percent planned to do so in 2018, while 10 percent were considering it. A slightly smaller number had given wage increases or planned to do so. A Reuters/Ipsos poll showed that 2 percent of U.S. adults said they had received a raise, bonus, or other additional benefits due to the tax law. The poll was conducted among 5,254 adults from January 12 to 23. Economists say it will take more time to fully assess the economic impact of the tax reform bill. Labor trend experts noted that amid a tightening labor market and low unemployment, companies have been trying to use different compensation and rewards to attract and retain top talent. Andrew Chamberlain, chief economist at Glassdoor, told PolitiFact that one-time bonuses are a low-risk way for companies to pass on some expected benefits of the tax bill to workers without committing to sustained higher base wages. "In this hiring environment, plans for pay increases are likely to have already been in the works, and the passage of the recent tax bill may simply have been the occasion for announcement rather than the cause," he said. The news coverage following the new tax policy may have led some employers to announce pay or benefit changes in an effort to stay ahead of competitors. This is not to say the tax bill hasn't affected recent decisions to raise wages at all, but the full impact of tax reform on the job market is something that will only be known in time—years or even a decade from now, Chamberlain said. Brian Kropp, HR practice leader at Gartner, an information technology research and advisory company, told PolitiFact that companies have been trying to use different compensation and rewards to attract and retain top talent. While it is true that some companies have used the tax cut to provide bonuses for employees, the majority of companies had already been increasing or planning to increase rewards well before the tax cut, he said. Companies announcing bonuses by the end of 2017 do receive a tax advantage of claiming a deduction in that tax year, Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center co-director Eric Toder told PolitiFact. A payment in 2017 would be deductible at a 35 percent rate; the same payment in 2018 would be deductible only at the new 21 percent rate, Toder said. "My understanding is companies would only have had to announce the bonus by the end of 2017 to claim the deduction in tax year 2017; they would not literally have had to send out the checks." Any surge in bonus payments now probably says little or nothing about how the corporate tax cuts will affect wages in the long run, Toder said. Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the libertarian Cato Institute who favored the corporate tax changes in the bill, said that the response from corporations was a surprise. "Taxes matter to businesses, and they respond," he said. However, bonuses are a short-term response to the tax bill, which is less important than potential long-term changes, such as whether corporations will build new factories or purchase more machinery. Economists and labor experts say it will take years to fully assess the economic impact of the tax bill. In this tight labor market, it's possible that some businesses were already planning to give out bonuses or other financial incentives to retain workers. We rate this claim Mostly True.

['National', 'Workers', 'Taxes']

True

In December, Trump signed a bill into law thatlowered the corporate tax ratefrom 35 to 21 percent.Trumps numbers match a compilation byAmericans for Tax Reform, a group started by anti-tax crusader Grover Norquist. Americans for Tax Reform advocates against tax increases andsupportedthe Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that Trump signed into law in December.Trump said that many of the bonuses are thousands of dollars per worker. But it appears that the majority of the company announcements were for bonuses of $1,000 or less. The list includes about nine companies that announced bonuses of $2,000, includingFiat Chryslers 60,000 employees.The Americans for Tax Reform analysis was only of recent bonus announcements and did not include a historical comparison to determine how many of these companies gave bonuses in recent years. Its not unusual for manycompanies to give bonuses.Willis Towers Watson, a global human resources consulting firm, surveyed 333 large and midsize employers in January to ask about their plans related to the tax bill. The survey showed that about 6 percent said they provided profit sharing or a bonus in 2017 and 5 percent planned to do so in 2018, while 10 percent were considering it. A slightly smaller number had given wage increases or planned to do so.AReuters/Ipsos pollshowed 2 percent of U.S. adults said they had gotten a raise, bonus or other additional benefits due to the tax law. The poll was conducted of 5,254 adults Jan. 12-23.

The federal tax code has loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.

[]

President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have sparred over tax policy for many months. They have argued about the treatment of the middle class, small businesses, and whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for the wealthiest 2 percent. The first presidential debate sparked discussion on a different point—the taxes paid by companies doing business overseas. So far, this topic has not played a prominent role in the campaign, although American-based multinational firms have a significant stake in the outcome. By one conservative estimate, this part of the tax code is worth $30 billion a year. During the debate, Obama tried to score points on Romney by highlighting the tax breaks companies receive when they move jobs overseas. When it comes to our tax code, Gov. Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that provide incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States. Romney responded, "The idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case." In this fact-check, we'll examine the president's statement and ask if there are tax incentives for companies that set up foreign operations. In the narrowest sense possible, Romney's rebuttal is accurate. There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. However, if a plant moves at all, whether it's from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions. "There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad," said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. "It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense." Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers and now at Villanova School of Law, went even further. "A company would be arguably negligent if they did not claim the deductions," Harvey said. In addition, the current tax law allows a tax deduction for the costs of shutting down a U.S. operation. But both tax experts said the moving expenses were trivial compared to the hefty tax savings that companies can realize after they move their operations. There are two provisions in the code that allow them to shelter income from the IRS. Tax break #1: Keeping profits overseas. When an American firm opens a foreign division, it typically sets up a separate company that does not pay U.S. taxes. "That foreign subsidiary is a new entity, organized and created in a foreign country," said McGill, "and is responsible for its own taxes." Profits earned by the subsidiary need not show up on the parent company's tax return. The subsidiary pays taxes in the country where it's located. Those rates are often lower than in the U.S., where the corporate rate is 35 percent. So long as profits remain overseas, U.S. taxes are deferred. The company can declare that none of that money will return to the U.S. McGill, along with colleagues Edmund Outslay and Michael Donohoe, analyzed the public financial statements of Apple and other high-tech companies such as Google and IBM. With Apple, they found the company had built up $23.4 billion in earnings that the company said would stay overseas permanently. And for good reason: Apple was paying an effective tax rate overseas of 1.2 percent on those profits. Tax break #2: Selling to yourself. An American firm with a global network of subsidiaries has another way to trim its tax bill. All of those companies can buy and sell among themselves. It's perfectly legal and very lucrative. Take the example of Google. In just one quarter, the owner of the world's most popular search engine had nearly $2.8 billion in net income, and over half of that came from outside the U.S. That would put Google in good shape regardless, but the foreign earnings would be especially valuable. In 2009, the company's foreign tax rate was 2.4 percent, reported Bloomberg News. Google helped keep its taxes low by licensing its algorithms and other digital innovations to an Irish subsidiary, which then sold advertising around the world. The Irish tax rate on that income was 4 percent. But Google was able to drive its tax bill even lower by creating Google Ireland Holdings, based in Bermuda, where the tax rate is 0.6 percent. The Irish subsidiary sheltered its income by paying royalties to the subsidiary based in Bermuda. These transactions are supposed to cost the same as if they were conducted at arm's length. Harvey, the former PricewaterhouseCoopers partner, said they are anything but. "It is relatively clear most U.S. multinational corporations are aggressively shifting taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions," Harvey said. "I believe that anyone who thinks the IRS can effectively enforce the arm's-length standard is an eternal optimist—or delusional." Tallying the cost. Harvey said the tax tools that multinationals can use give them a competitive advantage over domestic firms. He points to the work of Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit news service. Sullivan told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax revenues lost through deferral and transfer pricing were worth between $30 billion and $60 billion a year. Sullivan also noted that American firms with international operations had shed American jobs while increasing their overseas employment. Between 1999 and 2008, U.S. multinational corporations cut their domestic employment by 1.9 million. Over the same period, U.S. multinationals increased their employment overseas by 2.4 million, Sullivan said. But the picture is more complicated than it might seem. There is strong debate over the role that tax rates play in those job shifts. Some analysts, including Harvey, believe the real drivers could be lower wage rates and proximity to important markets around the globe. However, regardless of the initial motivation, once companies make the move, in Sullivan's words, "a toehold of real investment allows a truckload of profit to follow." Our ruling. President Obama said there are loopholes that provide incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. Independent analysts agree that firms with international operations can take advantage of tax loopholes that domestic firms cannot. The value of these loopholes is in the billions. Such tax laws might not be the deciding factor for companies to locate in foreign countries, but they make that choice more lucrative. We rate the statement True.

['National', 'Debates', 'Jobs', 'Taxes']

True

President Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have sparred over tax policy for many months. They have argued over the treatment of the middle class, small businesses and whether the Bush-era tax cuts should be extended for the wealthiest 2 percent. The first presidential debate sparked debate on a different point -- the taxes paid by companies doing business overseas.So far, this topic has not played a prominent role in the campaign, although American-based multinational firms have a huge stake in the outcome. By one conservative estimate, this part of the tax code is worth $30 billion a year.During the debate, Obama tried to score points on Romney by highlighting the tax breaks companies get when they move jobs overseas.When it comes to our tax code, Gov. Romney and I both agree that our corporate tax rate is too high, so I want to lower it, particularly for manufacturing, taking it down to 25 percent. But I also want to close those loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas. I want to provide tax breaks for companies that are investing here in the United States.Romney responded, The idea that you get a break for shipping jobs overseas is simply not the case.In this fact-check, we'll examine the presidents statement and ask if there are tax incentives for companies that set up foreign operations.In the narrowest sense possible, Romneys rebuttal is accurate. There is no clause in the tax code that rewards a company when it relocates production beyond U.S. borders. But if a plant moves at all, whether its from Ohio to Tennessee or Ohio to Malaysia, it is eligible for deductions.There is certainly a tax break for U.S. companies that move operations or people abroad, said Gary McGill, director of the Fisher School of Accounting at the University of Florida. It is simply a business expense like any other legitimate expense.Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, went even further.A company would be arguably negligent if they did not claim the deductions, Harvey said. In addition, the current tax law would allow a tax deduction for the costs of shutting down a U.S. operation.But both tax experts said the moving expenses were trivial compared to the hefty tax savings that companies can realize after they move their operations. There are two provisions in the code that allow them to shelter income from the IRS.Tax break #1: Keeping profits overseasWhen an American firm opens a foreign division, it typically sets up a separate company that does not pay U.S. taxes.That foreign subsidiary is a new entity, organized and created in a foreign country, said McGill. And responsible for its own taxes. Profits earned by the subsidiary need not show up on the parent companys tax return.The subsidiary pays taxes in the country where it's located. Those rates are often lower than in the U.S., where the corporate rate is 35 percent. So long as profits remain overseas, U.S. taxes are deferred.The company can declare that none of that money will return to the U.S.McGill, along with colleagues Edmund Outslay and Michael Donohoe, picked apart the public financial statements of Apple and other high-tech companies such as Google and IBM. With Apple, they found the company had built up $23.4 billion in earnings the company said would stay overseas permanently. And for good reason: Apple was paying an effective tax rate overseas of 1.2 percent on those profits.Tax break #2: Selling to yourselfAn American firm with a global network of subsidiaries has another way to trim its tax bill. All of those companies can buy and sell among themselves. Its perfectly legal and very lucrative. Take the example of Google.In just one quarter, the owner of the worlds most popular search engine had nearly $2.8 billion in net income and over half of that came from outside the U.S. That would put Google in good shape regardless, but the foreign earnings would be especially valuable. In 2009, the companys foreign tax rate was 2.4 percent, reportedBloomberg News.Google helped keep its taxes low by licensing its algorithms and other digital wizardry to an Irish subsidiary which then sold advertising around the world. The Irish tax rate on that income was 4 percent. But Google was able to drive its tax bill even lower by creating Google Ireland Holdings based in Bermuda where the tax rate is 0.6 percent. The Irish subsidiary sheltered its income by paying royalties to the subsidiary based in Bermuda.These transactions are supposed to cost the same as if they were conducted at arms length. Harvey, the former Pricewaterhouse Coopers partner, said they are anything but.It is relatively clear most U.S. multinational corporations are aggressively shifting taxable income to low-tax jurisdictions, Harvey said. I believe that anyone who believes the IRS can effectively enforce the arms-length standard is an eternal optimist or delusional.Tallying the costHarvey said the tax tools that multinationals can use give them a competitive advantage over domestic firms. He points to the work of Martin Sullivan, chief economist at Tax Analysts, a nonprofit news service. Sullivan told the House Ways and Means Committee that the tax revenues lost through deferral and transfer pricing were worth between $30 billion to $60 billion a year.Sullivan also noted that American firms with international operations had shed American jobs while increasing their overseas employment.Between 1999 and 2008, U.S. multinational corporations cut their domestic employment by 1.9 million. Over the same period U.S. multinationals increased their employment overseas by 2.4 million, Sullivan said.But the picture is more complicated than that might seem. There is strong debate over the role that tax rates play in those job shifts. Some analysts, including Harvey, believe the real drivers could be lower wage rates and being closer to important markets around the globe.However, regardless of the initial motivation, once companies make the move, in Sullivans words, a toehold of real investment allows a truckload of profit to follow.Our rulingPresident Obama said there are loopholes that are giving incentives for companies that are shipping jobs overseas.Independent analysts agree that firms with international operations can take advantage of tax loopholes that domestic firms can not. The value of these is in the billions. Such tax laws might not be the deciding factor for companies to locate in foreign countries, but they make that choice more lucrative.We rate the statement True.

According to Ted Cruz's tax proposal, businesses are required to pay a 16 percent tax on their earnings as well as on the wages they distribute to their employees.

[]

Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says. We wondered about that. In the Jan. 14, 2016, Fox Business Network Republican presidential debate in North Charleston, S.C., Sen. Rubio of Florida said that under the plan advocated by Sen. Cruz of Texas, businesses basically will have to pay a tax, both on the money they make, but they also have to pay taxes on the money that they pay their employees. A moment later, Rubio said Cruzs plan does not eliminate the corporate (income) tax or the payroll tax. Businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Cruz disputed that characterization, saying in part that a critical piece that Marco seems to be missing is that this 16 percent business flat tax enables us to eliminate the corporate income tax. It goes away. Cruzs plan replaces the corporate income tax, the payroll tax and others with a flat tax. Does it also make businesses pay 16 percent on profits and payroll, as Rubio said? Cruzs plan outlined After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments. Heres the flat-tax postcard as envisioned by Cruz: SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016) Next up: the 16 percent element. On Cruzs website, we spotted no direct indication the 16 percent would apply to payroll spending. For businesses, Cruz says there, the corporate income tax will be eliminated. It will be replaced by a simple Business Flat Tax at a single 16 percent rate. The current payroll tax system will be abolished, while maintaining full funding for Social Security and Medicare. Cruz further says the business flat tax will be based on revenues minus expenses such as equipment, computers, and other business investments. In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization. Independent breakdowns We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code. Farther along, the analysis spelled out a payroll aspect. Specifically, the foundation said, Cruzs plan: Enacts a broad-based, 16 percent Business Transfer Tax or value-added tax. This tax is levied on all business profits, less capital investment. This would include the payroll of business, government, and nonprofit institutions, as well as net imports. The tax would exempt from taxation the purchase of health insurance. A business transfer tax is also often known as a subtraction-method value-added tax. While its base is identical in economic terms to that of the credit-invoice VAT seen in many OECD countries, it is calculated from corporate accounts, not on individual transactions. The foundation also said: Under current law, some taxes on labor are explicitly levied on nominal wages, reducing take-home pay, while others are implicitly passed on to workers through lower nominal wages. The business transfer tax would also fall substantially on payrolls, but it would do so entirely through implicit reductions in nominal wages rather than explicit reductions in take-home pay. Thats a bit gobbledy-gooky for us. A foundation official, Kyle Pomerleau, told us by phone and email that what Rubio said largely holds up, though it would be wrong to conclude businesses under Cruzs plan would pay 16 percent on the same money twice. That is, Pomerleau elaborated, Cruzs plan eliminates the existing payroll tax, which is 15.3 percent of wages (half of that paid by employers, the other half by employees), but the plan counts payroll expenditures as part of net business profits, which are taxed at 16 percent. Even though his plan gets rid of the payroll tax, Pomerleau emailed, his new Business Flat Tax will end up taxing that payroll by disallowing its deduction at the business level. Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make. Rosenberg walked us through how he sees Cruzs plan working: Say a business buys something for 50 cents at wholesale and has to pay its employees 50 cents, accumulating $1 in costs. Then the business sells the something for $1.10, drawing a 10-cent profit. Under the Cruz plan, Rosenberg said, the business pays the flat tax solely on the 60-cent difference between the $1.10 in sales and the 50 cents spent on the wholesale purchase. And, Rosenberg noted, theres another way to pin what Cruzs plan subjects to the 16 percent tax -- by isolating what the business makes, the 10 cents, and then adding the 50 cents in employee payroll. Its very fair to interpret what Sen. Rubio said as correct, Rosenberg said, though its also worth mention (again) that Cruzs plan eliminates existing payroll and income taxes. Broadly, Rosenberg didnt agree that Cruzs plan whipsaws businesses, saying: Its a change in the way theyre taxed. Its not taxing something twice. We didnt hear back from Rubios camp about his claim nor did Cruz aides engage. Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan! Our ruling Rubio said that under Cruzs tax plan, businesses will now have to pay 16 percent on the money they make. They will also have to pay 16 percent on the money they pay their employees. Under Cruzs plan, that rate applies both to net income and payroll expenditures though the way this description was phrased by Rubio merits clarification. That is, the 16 percent would not be applied to what a business makes and separately applied again to money paid to employees. Also unsaid: The proposed tax would replace taxes including payroll and income taxes. 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.

['Taxes', 'Texas']

True

Ted Cruzs tax plan, envisioningtax returns that fit on postcards, would whack businesses twice over, Marco Rubio says.After emailing Rubios campaign about how he reached his 16 percent conclusions, we turned to Cruzs tax plan asoutlined by his campaign. Under the Simple Flat Tax, Cruz says on a campaign webpage, the current seven rates of personal income tax will collapse into a single low rate of 10 percent. For a family of four, the first $36,000 will be tax-free. The Child Tax Credit will remain in place, Cruz proposes, and the plan revamps the earned-income tax credit while preserving deductions for charitable contributions and mortgage interest payments.SOURCE:Web page,The Simple Tax Plan,Ted Cruz presidential campaign (viewed Jan. 20, 2016)In general, Cruz says, his proposed tax overhaul will deliver a tremendous economic boost, according to the well-respected Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C., nonprofit thatdescribes itselfas a leading independent tax policy research organization.We fetched the foundationsOctober 2015 analysisof Cruzs plan which, the foundation said, would replace the corporate income tax and all payroll taxes with a 16 percent Business Transfer Tax, or subtraction method value-added tax. In addition, his plan would repeal a number of complex features of the current tax code.Another authority, Joe Rosenberg of theUrban-Brookings Tax Policy Center, told us by phone that Rubio was accurate about Cruzs plan presuming he meant what most people define as profit by his phrase what you make.Footnote: A Jan. 14, 2016,foundation postby economist Alan Cole says Cruz and Rubio arent proposing entirely distinct tax approaches. In fact, Cole wrote, if you put together two taxes from Rubios plan (and fiddle with the rates), you can actually synthetically construct the business flat tax from Cruzs plan!Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Facebook Scam Pushes Fake Giveaway for Ninja Foodi Cooker

['A Facebook post congratulated users and misleadingly claimed that they had won a brand new Ninja Foodi MAX 15-in-1 SmartLid Multi-Cooker.']

On Sept. 21, 2022, we reviewed a misleading Facebook post that claimed multiple users had won a brand new Ninja Foodi MAX 15-in-1 SmartLid Multi-Cooker. The post was made on a page named Blue Light Card, which showed the unrelated category of "Wine/spirits." All of this was nothing more than another scam that led to a seemingly endless number of surveys that promised other prizes. The post originally read as follows: CONGRATULATIONS for those of you who have received comments from me have been selected as winners???Step 1 = Like and ShareStep 2 = Register here ? https://tinyurl.com/2ej2cd6uStep 3 = Coments "DONE" receive my prize. And the Gift will be sent after you successfully register (this is authentic and official) God bless you Good Luck. #bluelightcardcontest#entertowincontest_bluelightcard#entertowincontestbluelightcard The Facebook page that pushed this scam appeared to have been removed shortly before we published this story. Facebook The product was once featured in an official video from the company, Ninja Kitchen. It retails for around 299 pounds in the U.K., which would make it a pricey item to give out to multiple users for free. official video 299 pounds In sum, we recommend avoiding any promotions, giveaways, or contests on Facebook that ask users to like, comment, and share. The only exception to this rule would be if the post came from a page that has a verified badge. A page that's verified presumably would mean that a promotion would be trustworthy. Other than that, we generally advise that readers avoid prize offers that seem too good to be true. verified badge

['share']

False

The Facebook page that pushed this scam appeared to have been removed shortly before we published this story.The product was once featured in an official video from the company, Ninja Kitchen. It retails for around 299 pounds in the U.K., which would make it a pricey item to give out to multiple users for free.In sum, we recommend avoiding any promotions, giveaways, or contests on Facebook that ask users to like, comment, and share. The only exception to this rule would be if the post came from a page that has a verified badge. A page that's verified presumably would mean that a promotion would be trustworthy. Other than that, we generally advise that readers avoid prize offers that seem too good to be true.

Was Fauci the Villain in 'Dallas Buyers Club'?

['A periodic reminder that movies are not real life.']

In December 2021, a meme circulated on social media claiming that Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads the U.S. COVID-19 response and has become a figure of disdain for pandemic conspiracy theorists, was the real-life model for the villain in the 2013 movie "Dallas Buyers Club." The meme features images from the movie's promotional materials, including stars Matthew McConaughey, Jennifer Garner, and Jared Leto, alongside a black-and-white photograph of a young Fauci. It also includes text that reads: "Remember the movie 'Dallas Buyers Club' about a group of AIDS patients fighting for the right to use cheap, effective drugs against government bureaucrats in the pocket of Big Pharma? The bad guy was Dr. Anthony Fauci." First of all, we note that movies are not real life. Even if it were true that the villain in the movie was based on Fauci, that doesn't mean the story is completely factual rather than dramatized for the purpose of making a good movie. Producer Rachel Winter commented on this in a statement published by Slate in 2013: "[Screenwriters] Craig [Borten] and Melisa [Wallack] found the right blend of accuracy, not only for the medical details but for the legal and government issues that Ron faced. There was only so far we could go into 'procedural' mode; the movie had to be entertaining." And entertaining it was, racking up six Academy Award nominations and winning the Oscar for Best Actor, Supporting Actor, and Best Makeup and Hairstyling. Various aspects of the movie's script do not align with the claim that the villain in the film was modeled after Fauci, and we could not find any public statements made by anyone involved with the film indicating that the antagonist was based on him. The film is a classic tale of the heroic man who uses his ingenuity and grit to confront the uncaring and callous bureaucrats of Big Government. Although the protagonist in the story is a real person, the antagonists appear to be fictional characters. We do not know whether they are based on real people or amalgamations of individuals the protagonist encountered during his life. McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a hard-living Dallas electrician and rodeo rider who is diagnosed with HIV in 1985. At that time, an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence because there was no treatment for the new epidemic. Woodroof is placed in a clinical trial for azidothymidine (AZT). The thrust of the movie is that there is a conspiracy between the government and the medical establishment to push "toxic" AZT on HIV patients, while Woodroof circumvents the system by going to Mexico and obtaining an unapproved cocktail of drugs and supplements from a doctor who lost his license to practice in the U.S. Woodroof then returns to form the Dallas Buyers Club with a transgender woman named Rayon (Jared Leto), where they illicitly sell the cocktail, initially for profit and later to save lives, only to be pursued by an FDA agent. The antagonist (or "bad guy") in the film is an FDA investigator, which is not an equivalent position to the one Fauci held at the time the events portrayed in the film took place. Fauci was an important public health figure during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but he was not an FDA agent. He spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), becoming that agency's director in 1984, one year before the events in the film. The Washington Post reported in 2014 that neither the portrayal of AZT nor Woodroof's legal troubles were accurate in the film, noting, "AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS." It was known to prolong life after a diagnosis. While it is true that the doses prescribed early in the epidemic were often too high, resulting in deleterious effects, those effects could easily be countered by lowering the dose or stopping the drug. The Post noted that AZT became an important part of lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment for about a decade and, as such, saved "millions" of lives. The film included a title card at the end admitting as much. Its portrayal of the FDA's actions regarding such buyers clubs was also factually problematic, as in reality, the FDA did cooperate with them. Peter Staley, an HIV/AIDS activist who informally consulted on the film, told the Post: "The true story was that we made the system bend, and we used the system and needed the system. I wouldn't be alive today without the companies this film paints as evil, and I wouldn't be alive today without civil servants at the FDA who worked incredibly hard in the 1990s to get these drugs out there quickly." Furthermore, Woodroof's issues with the FDA largely stemmed from "his reluctance to stop using harmful treatments." In sum, there is no evidence that the antagonist in the movie was based on Fauci, and even if that were the case, that does not mean one should draw any real-world conclusions about Fauci based on a movie made for entertainment purposes.

['profit']

NEI

In December 2021, a meme circulated on social media that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, who leads the U.S. COVID-19 response and has become a bogeyman for pandemic conspiracy theorists, was the real-life model for the villain in the 2013 movie "Dallas Buyers Club."Producer Rachel Winter said as much in a comment published by Slate in 2013:The thrust of the movie is that there is a conspiracy between the government and medical establishment to push "toxic" AZT on HIV patients, while Woodroof circumvents the system by going to Mexico and getting an unapproved cocktail of drugs and supplements from a doctor who lost his license to practice in the U.S.. Woodroof then returns to form the Dallas Buyers Club with a transgender woman named Rayon (Jared Leto), where they illicitly sell the cocktail, at first for profit and later to save lives, only to be hounded an FDA agent.Fauci was an important public health figure during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but he wasn't an FDA agent. He spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), becoming that agency's director in 1984, one year before the events in the film.The Washington Post reported in 2014 that neither the portrayal of AZT or Woodroof's legal trouble were accurate in the film, noting, "AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS." It was known to prolong life after a diagnosis. It's true that the doses it was prescribed at early in the epidemic were often too high, resulting in deleterious effects, but those effects could easily be countered by lowering the dose or stopping the drug.

Did Trump Say 'Laziness Is a Trait in Blacks; No Black President Again Any Time Soon'?

["A meme created the impression that Donald Trump claimed that there wouldn't be a black president again any time soon because 'laziness is a trait in blacks.'"]

An Internet meme circulating in August 2016 paired two racially charged statements previously attributed separately to Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump. While neither attribution was new, the conjunction of the two statements created the impression that Trump must have opined at some point that no black person would be President of the United States again any time soon because "laziness is a trait in blacks." There is a public record of Donald Trump having stated, more or less, that no black person would be president again any time soon because of the poor performance of his predecessor in the White House, Barack Obama. When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered: "Well, I think he's been a very poor president. I think he has done a very poor job as president. We have $18 trillion right now in debt and going up rapidly." Karl then asked, "But what did you mean?" Trump continued, "Wait a minute. The world is... we don't have victories anymore. China is killing us on trade. Mexico's killing us at the border and also killing us on trade. Mexico's doing unbelievably against us in trade. You look at what's going on with Japan. You look at what's going on with Vietnam. You look at Saudi Arabia, which makes $1 billion a day, and we defend them. We get nothing." Karl responded, "I understand your critique. But why do you say that means we won't see another black president for generations?" Trump replied, "Because I think that he has set a very poor standard. I think that he has set a very low bar, and I think it's a shame for the African American people. And by the way, he has done nothing for African Americans. You look at what's gone on with their income levels. You look at what's gone on with their youth. I thought that he would be a great cheerleader for this country. I thought he'd do a fabulous job for the African American citizens of this country." A source attributing the statement "Laziness is a trait in blacks" to Donald Trump dates back to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that this source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere. As one might expect, O'Donnell's account, Trumped!, paints an unflattering portrait of its subject overall but offers this anecdote specifically as evidence of Trump's low opinion of the African Americans in his employ: "What do you think of him?" Donald asked. I said I was familiar with his abilities, and he had shortcomings. "To be honest, I don't think he's the best we can have," I said. "I'd like to see him either come up to speed, where he can help me a lot more, or maybe there's something else he can do." Instantly, Donald was enthused. "Yeah, I never liked the guy. I don't think he knows what the fuck he's doing. My accountants up in New York are always complaining about him. He's not responsive. And isn't it funny, I've got black accountants at Trump Castle and at Trump Plaza. Black guys counting my money! I hate it. The only kind of people I want counting my money are short guys that wear yarmulkes every day. Those are the kind of people I want counting my money. Nobody else." I couldn't believe I was hearing this. But Donald went on, "Besides that, I've got to tell you something else. I think that the guy is lazy. And it's probably not his fault because laziness is a trait in blacks. It really is, I believe that. It's not anything they can control.... Don't you agree?" He looked at me square in the eye and waited for my reply. "Donald, you really shouldn't say things like that to me or anybody else," I said. "That is not the kind of image you want to project. We shouldn't even be having this conversation, even if it's the way you feel." "Yeah, you're right," he said. "If anybody ever heard me say that... holy shit... I'd be in a lot of trouble. But I have to tell you, that's the way I feel." Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997) Playboy magazine interview—"The stuff O'Donnell wrote about me is probably true," Trump said at the time—he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press: "I never said it. I don't even know... I hardly know this guy. He was running one of my casinos for a short period of time. He was fired; we fired him because he wasn't doing a very good job. He wrote this nasty book. He made up stuff. This is like Jon Lovitz on 'Saturday Night Live,' the liar. 'I went to Harvard. Yeah, I went to Harvard.' This guy, I hardly know him. He made up this quote. I've heard the quote before, and it's nonsense." Russert pressed, "You've never said anything like that?" Trump replied, "I've never said anything like it, ever." As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed "with some skepticism."

['debt']

NEI

When called upon to explain the statement in a 2 August 2015 interview with Jonathan Karl on ABC News' This Week, Trump offered:A source attributing the statement "Laziness is a trait in blacks" to Donald Trump dates to the early 1990s. It should be noted, however, that that source was a book written by a disgruntled former employee of Trump Plaza Hotel & Casino, John R. O'Donnell, and neither the statement nor the sentiment behind it has been corroborated elsewhere.Although Trump didn't deny any of O'Donnell's specific allegations in a subsequent (1997)Playboy magazine interview -- "The stuff ODonnell wrote about me is probably true," Trump said at the time -- he vehemently denied O'Donnell's account of the conversation when asked about it during a 24 October 1999 interview with Tim Russert on Meet the Press:As the Washington Post noted, it is, at best, a secondhand quote from a private conversation, written down years after the fact, and should be viewed "with some skepticism."

'No DUIs' Scam Promises $610, $622, $710, or $712 in Savings

['We reached out to the Better Business Bureau to learn more.']

Since at least 2020, various Facebook and Instagram ads claimed that U.S. citizens with "no DUIs in the last 3 years" could receive $610, $622, $710, or $712 as a government refund check, perhaps as part of a stimulus plan, if they simply entered their ZIP code into a form. For example, one video ad showed U.S. President Joe Biden signing a piece of paper and another person holding checks that appeared to resemble the design used by the U.S. Treasury. It also included a clip of a family celebrating something they saw on their computer. one video ad Joe Biden The video of the family celebrating likely had something to do with the girl in the video being accepted to a college. It's unclear if they knew their video was being used in this Facebook ad. This Facebook ad from the Edwin Parker Facebook page, which had more than 70,000 followers, read: "Enter Your Zip Code To See What You Get Back. US Citizens with no DUIs in the last 3 years are getting $610 back if they sign up before the deadline ends. HURRY." Edwin Parker Facebook page However, there was no truth to any of this. Biden did not sign legislation to provide $610, $622, $710, $712, or any other amount of money to drivers who hadn't driven under the influence in the last three years. No other U.S. government entity was providing money either. A picture of Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court also appeared in some of the ads as well, which was also misleading. These sorts of Facebook and Instagram ads often lead to little more than offers to change insurance providers. However, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) told us that these can also be scams that attempt to obtain your personally identifiable information for nefarious purposes. We previously reported about a similar scam that also used pictures of Biden and promised $3,600 stimulus checks from the government to homeowners. reported The ad on the Edwin Parker Facebook page led to the website expertsinfinance.online. We noticed that the website's terms and conditions page was rather short, and that the address it listed was in Mumbai, India. expertsinfinance.online terms and conditions page Mumbai, India The Facebook ads claimed the dollar amount was $610 or $622, while the website resulting from the ad said $710 or $712. The website's landing page stated the following: People With No DUIs In Last 3 Years Are Getting $710 Back in Savings. ENDING SOON: Drivers Should Check Savings Before the 30th ... Disclaimer: This is an advertorial and not an actual news article, blog or consumer protection update. Our aim is to bring consumers the best information that may help them make informed decisions. This article is for demonstration purposes only. By proceeding forward you automatically agree to our terms and conditions. The purpose of this site is the solicitation of insurance. This article is for demonstration purposes only. By proceeding forward you automatically agree to our terms and conditions. The purpose of this site is the solicitation of insurance. This site is not a part of the Facebook website or Facebook Inc. This site is not endorsed by Facebook in any way. FACEBOOK is a trademark of FACEBOOK, Inc. As for the Edwin Parker Facebook page, it listed 19 page managers in India, one in Germany, and one in the U.S. Also, its profile picture did not show a man named Edwin Parker, but rather Ezekiel Emanuel. profile picture Emanuel's bio said that he was "the Vice Provost for Global Initiatives, the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania." He was also listed as "a Special Advisor to the Director General of the World Health Organization, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress." He appeared to do have nothing to do with the Facebook page and likely did not know his picture was being misused. bio In sum, no, drivers with "no DUIs in the last 3 years" were not eligible for government refund checks of $610, $622, $710, $712, or any other dollar amount. Readers as well as their friends and family are advised to steer clear of these kinds of ads and websites. For the reasons stated within this story, along with guidance from the BBB, we have rated this claim as a "Scam."

['insurance']

False

For example, one video ad showed U.S. President Joe Biden signing a piece of paper and another person holding checks that appeared to resemble the design used by the U.S. Treasury. It also included a clip of a family celebrating something they saw on their computer. The video of the family celebrating likely had something to do with the girl in the video being accepted to a college. It's unclear if they knew their video was being used in this Facebook ad.This Facebook ad from the Edwin Parker Facebook page, which had more than 70,000 followers, read: "Enter Your Zip Code To See What You Get Back. US Citizens with no DUIs in the last 3 years are getting $610 back if they sign up before the deadline ends. HURRY."These sorts of Facebook and Instagram ads often lead to little more than offers to change insurance providers. However, the Better Business Bureau (BBB) told us that these can also be scams that attempt to obtain your personally identifiable information for nefarious purposes. We previously reported about a similar scam that also used pictures of Biden and promised $3,600 stimulus checks from the government to homeowners.The ad on the Edwin Parker Facebook page led to the website expertsinfinance.online. We noticed that the website's terms and conditions page was rather short, and that the address it listed was in Mumbai, India. The Facebook ads claimed the dollar amount was $610 or $622, while the website resulting from the ad said $710 or $712.As for the Edwin Parker Facebook page, it listed 19 page managers in India, one in Germany, and one in the U.S. Also, its profile picture did not show a man named Edwin Parker, but rather Ezekiel Emanuel.Emanuel's bio said that he was "the Vice Provost for Global Initiatives, the Diane v.S. Levy and Robert M. Levy University Professor at the University of Pennsylvania." He was also listed as "a Special Advisor to the Director General of the World Health Organization, as well as a Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress." He appeared to do have nothing to do with the Facebook page and likely did not know his picture was being misused.

Does health insurance under the Affordable Care Act require payments of hundreds or thousands of dollars monthly?

["ACA costs are going up in 2017, but premium payments depend largely on the individual's income level."]

On 24 October 2016, health insurance broker Tyler McClosky created a phenomenon on Facebook when he posted a screen shot of what it would cost for a family of four with a total household income of $98,000 in Lee County, Florida, to buy insurance on the Affordable Care Act's marketplace: We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida): tool But data sent by a Department of Health and Human Services official pointed out that 81 percent of families of that size on an Obamacare plan have household incomes of less than $48,000. So the average family currently subscribing to Obamacare would not be paying nearly as much as the image above depicts in their out-of-pocket premium costs. We entered the same data but changed the income to $48,000 here: McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers: customers Across states using the HealthCare.gov platform, the median increase in the second-lowest cost silver plan premium is 16 percent, while the average increase is 25 percent. This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected). table According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs. data But McClosky was addressing people whose income disqualifies them from that assistance. He told us he used the $98,000 annual income as an example because that is the threshold at which households of four with two children do not qualify for tax credit assistance (you qualify if you make up to 400 percent of the federal poverty line). He said he created the post because he wanted to raise awareness about what it costs to insure a family in which each adult is making an annual salary of $44,000, and neither has access to employer-based health care a fairly common situation in the United States. His concern, he said, is that only consumers who qualify for a tax subsidy can afford insurance under ACA. If their incomes are too high to qualify for assistance, they may simply go without. While the number of uninsured Americans dropped under ACA, as of 2015, 28.5 million people still lack coverage. Per the Kaiser Family Foundation: Even under the ACA, many uninsured people cite the high cost of insurance as the main reason they lack coverage. In 2015, 46% of uninsured adults said that they tried to get coverage but did not because it was too expensive. Many people do not have access to coverage through a job, and some people, particularly poor adults in states that did not expand Medicaid, remain ineligible for financial assistance for coverage. Some people who are eligible for financial assistance under the ACA may not know they can get help, and others may still find the cost of coverage prohibitive. In addition, undocumented immigrants are ineligible for Medicaid or Marketplace coverage. Eric Seiber, associate professor of health services management and policy at Ohio State, said that the health care system in the United States is the most expensive in the world, and costs have steadily increased over the years. Despite its name, the Affordable Care Act doesn't actually address the cost of health care itself: The ACA is not health care reform. Its health insurance reform. It really doesnt do that much about affordable care or patient protection beyond the subsidies and Medicaid. People's perception that their wages have been flat is an effect of compensation increases going to cover rising healthcare costs instead of into their paychecks, Seiber said. McClosky, who sells health and life insurance plans in Florida, said that the Affordable Care Act has had the effect of diminishing competition among carriers. For instance, Lee County residents can only purchase Blue Cross Blue Shield. Prices in Miami-Dade are lower than in Lee County, because there are more carriers competing with each other. McClosky says insurance carriers have been squeezed by part of the mandate which requires them to spend 80 to 85 percent on claim payouts and health care quality improvement. He pointed to Assurant, a 123-yea-old insurer that specialized in individual and small business plans. They could not survive under the ACA and filed for bankruptcy in 2015. Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs: pointed out These increases really matter only for those who buy their own insurance. Most people are unaffected by the rate increases because they get their insurance through an employer or are covered through government programs like Medicare, Medicaid or the Department of Veterans Affairs. Only a small fraction of Americans who have insurance buy individual policies. There are about 10 million people in the Obamacare markets and around an additional seven million who buy health plans outside the marketplace, according to Obama administration estimates. The published rate increases apply only to people who shop in the markets, but premiums are expected to go up sharply for the other plans as well. However, as McClosky's post makes clear, whether people notice it or not, American health care costs are high and not everyone can qualify for available assistance. Kaiser Family Foundation. "2017 Premium Changes and Insurer Participation in the Affordable Care Acts Health Insurance Marketplaces." 25 October 2016. ASPE Research Brief. "Health plan choice and premiums in the 2017 health insurance marketplace." 24 October 2016. Abelson, Reed, and Sanger-Katz, Margaret. "A Quick Guide to Rising Obamacare Rates." The New York Times. 25 October 2016. Boulton, Guy. "Milwaukee-based Assurant Health to be sold off or shut down." Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. 28 April 2015.

['income']

NEI

We were able to recreate McClosky's viral post using the shopping tool at healthcare.gov and the same data he entered (two non-smoking parents with a combined income of $98,000 and two 8-year-old children in Lee County, Florida):McClosky created the post on 24 October 2016, the same day a report by the Department of Health and Human Services was released detailing an average 25 percent increase in costs to the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) customers:This figure varies based on locale. For instance, a table compiled by the Kaiser Family Foundation shows that people in Phoenix, Arizona will have a 145 percent premium increase, but a tax subsidy will mean a 40-year-old, non-smoking Phoenix resident with a $30,000 annual income will not have to pay any more than last year (which is roughly $207 a month, depending on the plan selected).According to data sent by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), a majority of consumers covered by the ACA (85 percent) qualify for tax credits that keep pace with premium increases, so many won't see much of an impact on their out-of-pocket costs.Health care is a source of roiling political debate for years. While the cost of health plans under Obamacare will go up an average 25 percent as of 1 November 2016, the majority of consumers won't experience much change in their out-of-pocket costs when open enrollment starts for 2017, because the tax credits will buffer that increase. Further, as the New York Times pointed out, many Americans are shielded from the immediate costs of health care by employer-based insurance or the public programs:

'Card Not Present' Scams

['Should vendors be wary of doing business with Nigerians who are looking to charge large purchases to credit cards?']

Scam: Vendors have been duped into shipping large orders to Nigeria, only to find they've been paid with stolen credit cards. REAL FRAUD WHICH COSTS ITS VICTIMS HUNDREDS TO THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS Origins: Nigeria is recognized as one of the most corrupt places on Earth, having become notorious as a hotbed of international theft, chicanery, and fraud. Within that country almost no business transaction is free from the taint of bribery, and it has been estimated that seventy percent of the goods entering Nigeria are smuggled in. This West African country gained its dubious international reputation in the 1980s after government corruption and a fall in oil prices crippled its economy. It is crushed under an estimated $30 billion debt, soaring unemployment, and galloping inflation. According to the United Nations Development Program, seven of every ten Nigerian citizens earn less than $1 a day. In this environment, chicanery has become a way of life because very little else pays nearly as well. Although the country's leaders have pledged to tackle the international fraud rings and clean up the graft that thrived during the lawless years of military dictatorships, theft has become so much a part of Nigerian culture that those who perpetrate it do so with little fear of punishment, let alone possess any real sense of wrongdoing. Many of those Nigerians who make their living through larceny believe that if caught they need only return a part of what they've taken for the matter to be fully resolved the concept of going to jail for having victimized others is just not a part of the thought process. Nigerian scam artists are masters at defrauding those who live in other nations. They have been highly successful at this endeavor through the venerable Nigerian scam, and they just recently have begun scalping many via the cashier check scam. But of late they have seemingly also discovered the potential of "card not present" (CNP) credit card transactions. CNP sales offer enterprising thieves the opportunity to have the goods they are stealing shipped directly to them all it takes are seemingly valid credit card numbers and less-than-savvy merchants to victimize. Given that Nigeria is host to a thriving black market that makes disposing of ill-gotten goods not only an easy but lucrative undertaking, CNP theft is a natural for that land's swindlers to have turned their hands to. Nigerian scam cashier check Prior to the Internet, CNP (card not present) transactions were termed MOTO (Mail Order/Telephone Order) sales. CNP sales differ from point of sale (POS) transactions in that merchants do not ever see the actual cards or the persons proffering them. Whereas charge card sales made in stores conclude with prospective buyers presenting themselves and their chargeplates to the vendors, credit card purchases made over the phone, through the Internet, or by mail are effected merely by providing the data printed on the cards. These transactions are thus far less secure undertakings for merchants to engage in, given that the information being provided can't be even somewhat confirmed by a glance at the cards, or the identities of the buyers established by having them show additional proofs of who they are. The CNP scam works like this: A retailer is contacted by phone or through e-mail by a prospective buyer looking to purchase a largish quantity of goods with a credit card. Often these goods are to be shipped to Nigeria, with the buyer unconcerned about the tremendous cost of transporting the order. In some cases, the buyer will look to split the cost of the order across a number of credit cards. In a number of cases, Nigerians looking to disguise their identities have taken to placing calls through relay telephone systems that had been set up to assist the deaf. (As to how that works, hearing-impaired phone users type text messages on teletypewriters [TTY]. These text messages are relayed to specialized call centers where they are converted into spoken word for the people at the other ends of the phone lines. When these other parties reply, their messages are converted into text and relayed back to the hearing-impaired users.) Such "relaying" disguises what would have been otherwise telltale accents. Also, because there is no cost for this service, Nigerians can make these calls to businesses in the U.S. without racking up international phone charges. Only after the goods have been shipped does the seller come to the realization that the credit card used to effect the transaction was stolen. By then it is too late the goods are gone, as is the "buyer." Merchants have to be especially wary of fraudulent credit card purchases because they bear the financial burden of any losses so incurred. Whereas a shopper who is robbed of his chargeplate is liable for only the first $50 of charges subsequently made against it, the merchant who accepts a purloined card is left holding the bag. If a thief uses hot plastic to "buy" thousands of dollars worth of goods from an overly trusting shopkeeper, that shopkeeper is out the value whatever the thief left the store with or had shipped to him there is no $50 cap on the seller's losses. We've grown accustomed to thinking of "businesses" as large financial entities, the sorts of mercantile behemoths that can easily weather a little theft here, a little fraud there. However, often the retailers who fall victim to this form of theft are small businesses run by single proprietors dependent on their shops' income for their livelihood. In those instances, there is no big, thick cushion of profits piled on profits, no built-in allowance for "shrinkage" (the retail term for losses due to pilferage) the theft is a direct blow to people struggling to make a go of it. Indeed, larger businesses are less likely to fall prey to such fleecings in that their employees responsible for dealing with credit card transactions have been trained in what to look out for. In Mom 'n' Pop stores, training often amounts to only whatever instructions the person doing the hiring comes up with; if that person isn't savvy in fraud circumvention, the clerks he or she trains won't be either. Also, those operating or working for small outfits are far more likely to let desire to make sizable sales temporarily blind them to the dangers inherent to big CNP orders. Larger sales mean more in small shops, and they mean more not just to the owners but also to the employees involved because, being fewer of them, they are far more likely to benefit from the shop's success vis--vis more money being available with which to fund raises or underwrite improved incentive and benefit plans. Here is a sampling of some Nigerian-run CNP frauds that successfully scammed small businesses out of their goods: In December 2003, an Omaha firm that made Christmas lights and decorations found itself taken to the tune of about $10,000 it had shipped goods to a buyer in Nigeria who had used a stolen card. The defrauded company became suspicious only when the buyer then looked to order American flag displays and five expensive Sony telephones, the latter not even being something the company vended. In April 2004, a Lancaster, Pennsylvania, man who ran his own computer business was defrauded of $15,000. He filled and shipped three orders (including one for 65 ink-jet cartridges) before being asked by his customer for one hundred disc drives which the buyer planned to pay for by dividing the bill among eight credit cards. The proposed transaction raised enough of a red flag for the man to realize what had been going on. The thief had taken the added precaution of covering his tracks well: because the calls had been placed through a relay operator, they could not be traced and no voice was heard. (Such calls are typically placed by the deaf.) In the summer of 2002, a bookstore owner in Richmond, Virginia, was duped out of $9,200 worth of goods when she accepted four orders in August and September via the Internet for a total of 270 Bibles and 31 electronic hand-held Bibles to be mailed to Nigeria. The loss put the bookstore into further financial distress sales had been languishing before that, and the owner hadn't taken a salary since May of that year. In April 2003, a non-profit organization in Albuquerque lost close to $1,000 in goods when it accepted a credit card charge for a large number of T-shirts. Its losses could have been far greater in that the thief was attempting to place a further 12 orders when the first theft was discovered. (Even then, the "buyer" had the gall to call the non-profit to insist the bad credit card number was simply a mistake.) Sometimes those looking to move stolen merchandise to Nigeria do so by way of having the goods first shipped to U.S. addresses before being repackaged for transit to their final destination of the black market in Nigeria. They position innocent parties in the U.S. to act as temporary guardians of the incoming bounty, an act that gives vendors the false security of their goods being delivered to American addresses (from which they would assume they could be reclaimed if anything went wrong with the sale). Those desperate to make a bit of money will find themselves approached by Nigerians who will claim they are in the business of provisioning shops in that faraway land, but that their having to ship items piecemeal is killing their bottom line because the freight charges are murder. Would the dupe consent to their using his house as a central collection point where they could assemble their various purchases into one super shipment, or even doing the repackaging and shipping on their behalf? But of course they would be willing to pay a fee for the use of the premises for as long as their consignments were taking up space and to recompense him for his trouble. The best such unwitting dupes can hope for are understanding police officers, in that sooner or later the boys in blue are bound to come knocking as one defrauded vendor after another reports having shipped goods to that address. In a worse scenario, those whose homes are being used as way stations will be assumed to have been in on the racket and will find themselves charged with receiving stolen goods: In January 2004, a Mishawaka, Indiana, man fell in with such a scheme, storing items for a Nigerian woman who had convinced him she was starting up a business in her land and needed him to serve as a central collection point for her purchases prior to mailing them to her. The dupe met the woman (known only as "Brown Sugar") in an Internet chat room. Computer company Hewlett-Packard twigged police to what was going on after two computers bought from it with stolen cards showed up as having been shipped to the Mishawaka man's address. Police recovered DVD players, cameras, boots, clothing, and herbal and sexual supplements from the man's home. No charges were laid against the man because the investigation into the matter showed him to be a victim, not one of the perpetrators. In July 2003, 42-year-old Leonett G. Knoll of Albany, New York, was charged with receiving stolen property after police discovered $50,000 worth of purloined goods at his house that he was preparing to ship to a confederate in Nigeria. Like the unnamed Mishawaka man, he too had been befriended in a chat room and persuaded to serve as a collection point for items to be freighted to Nigeria. In February 2003, a New Hampshire couple were arrested after local police and U.S. Postal inspectors found a large amount of stolen merchandise in their home that they intended to reship to Nigeria. A December 2003 news story out of Anchorage, Alaska, reports that at least two people in that city were roped into becoming receivers of stolen goods via a newspaper ad looking for folks interested in making money at home using the Internet. On the promise of being paid later by check, these folks received goods from local companies and shipped them off to Nigeria, only long afterwards realizing they'd been part of a crime. Most of the time those who are using stolen credit cards to move goods to Nigeria are operating from that distant land and thus lie well outside the grasp of U.S. law enforcement. It is the sad reality of such thefts and frauds that they go unpunished because their perpetrators are safe in another jurisdiction. But sometimes the perpetrators make the mistake of operating where American justice can get its hooks into them. In March 2003, 19-year-old Ikemefuna Iwunoh was arrested in Wichita on federal charges for his part in such thefts. The young man had been part of a group of Nigerian nationals who had hacked into computer systems to steal credit card numbers from across the country and had used some of the numbers so collected to order a variety of goods delivered to his home (for later reshipment to Nigeria, where they would fetch double their value on the black market). Some days as many as 40 boxes (containing computers, printers, shoes, and clothing) were delivered to his door. Three others in Pittsburgh were charged along with Iwunoh: Itobore Oshobe, 24; Ote Kadana, 23; and Andrew Ikepeme, 19. Investigators estimated that the apartment in Wichita was the base for about $100,000 in fraudulent charges between August 2002 and March 2003. Barbara "charge of the light-fingered brigade" Mikkelson How To Avoid Falling Victim To CNP Scams: Always keep in mind that electronic approval of a credit card vets only that the charge account itself is valid; it does not guarantee that the person presenting it to you is its legitimate holder. Verify with the issuer that the card has not been reported stolen before proceeding with any large order. Be wary of any CNP transactions (Internet, mail, telephone order) where one or more of the following indicators are present: Larger than normal orders. Orders placed where card numbers used are similar and/or sequential. Orders going to international addresses. Orders consisting of several of the same item. Many orders shipped to a single address. Orders shipped rush or overnight. Orders originating from free e-mail addresses. Orders where the "ship to" and "bill to" addresses are different. Orders with requests that costs be split on one card or across several cards. When faced with a suspect order, verify the customer's billing address, either electronically or by an automated phone system via accessing an Address Verification System (AVS). Turn down orders which involve shipping goods to Nigeria. Stop believing in the chimera of "something for nothing." Additional Information: Foiling Credit Card Fraud (Bankrate.com) Last updated: 11 July 2011 Johnson, May Lee. "Internet Fraud Reported." South Bend Tribune. 10 January 2004 (p. A1). Jordon, Steve. "Nigerian Scam Fools Omaha Firm." Omaha World Herald. 12 December 2003 (p. B1). King, Ronette. "Scams Thrive on Corruption, Rampant Poverty." [New Orleans] Times-Picayune. 9 June 1996 (p. F1). Murphy, John. "Reform in a Country of Cons." The Baltimore Sun. 20 February 2004 (p. A2). Tsong, Nicole. "Internet Scammers Succeed in Schemes Duping Alaskans." Anchorage Daily News. 15 December 2003 (p. B1). Albuquerque Journal. "AG Warms of Net Scam." 10 April 2003 (Business Outlook, p. 20). Associated Press. "Former Community College Student Arrested in Black-Market Scam." 7 March 2003. Associated Press. "Arrests in Wichita and Pittsburgh in Credit Card Scam." 7 March 2003. Lancaster New Era. "Business Here Loses $15,000 in Scam." 5 April 2004 (p. B1). The [Albany] Times Union. "Cops Link Scam, Web, Nigeria." 25 July 2003 (p. B14). WMAQ-TV, Chicago. "Caller Gives Two Credit Card Numbers." 26 April 2004.

['income']

False

Nigerian scam artists are masters at defrauding those who live in other nations. They have been highly successful at this endeavor through the venerable Nigerian scam, and they just recently have begun scalping many via the cashier check scam. But of late they have seemingly also discovered the potential of "card not present" (CNP) credit card transactions. CNP sales offer enterprising thieves the opportunity to have the goods they are stealing shipped directly to them all it takes are seemingly valid credit card numbers and less-than-savvy merchants to victimize. Given that Nigeria is host to a thriving black market that makes disposing of ill-gotten goods not only an easy but lucrative undertaking, CNP theft is a natural for that land's swindlers to have turned their hands to. Foiling Credit Card Fraud (Bankrate.com)

Letter from Vladimir Putin

['Text reproduces an open letter to Americans from Russian president Vladimir Putin?']

Claim: Text reproduces an open letter to Americans from Russian president Vladimir Putin. INCORRECT ATTRIBUTION Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2013] A letter from Russian President Vladimir Putin to the American people has been circulating around the internet for the past couple of days. In the letter, Putin re-introduces Americans to some unpleasant facts about history and life theyd rather forget, such as Nixons reasoning behind massive carpet bombing of millions or North Vietnamese for the purpose of 'looking good' while exiting the war, and how Pakistan has been using the U.S. as a 'false ally' to gain foreign aid, while using the funds to embolden the Taliban in Afghanistan. He calls out Barrack Hussein Obama for having the audacity to meet with gay rights activists while he is in Russia next week, a group Putin despises, while refusing to carve away time to meet with him and solve the Syria issue. He compares the action to the equivalent of him (Putin) coming to the U.S. and meeting with Obamas domestic enemy, the N.R.A. How do I put this politely? You Americans are dumb. Today, Russia and America are fighting each other over fighting the Muslim radicals. Instead, we should be uniting to crush these violent Islamists, once and for all. You Americans want to remove my ally, the Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad. To borrow a phrase from your John F. Kennedy, Assad may be a son-of-a-bitch, but hes my son-of-a-bitch. So if you want to destroy him, what are you going to give me in return? If your answer is, "We will give you nothing," well, why would I ever agree to that? That's not negotiation, that's dictation; it's a return to the bad Yeltsin days, when Holy Mother Russia was pushed into the mud like a used whore. [Remainder of the letter can be viewed here.] here Origins: This "open letter" from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Americans, putatively expressing that politician's viewpoints on U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war and other international matters, was published on breitbart.com on 3 September 2013 under the breitbart.com title "LETS JOIN ONE ANOTHER TO CRUSH THE UNHOLY, UNRULY, JIHADI MUSLIMS" and attributed to Vladimir Putin. Many readers who encountered this item on that site (and elsewhere) mistook its attribution and first person tone as an indication that the piece was actually written by President Putin himself. Even though this item may have been cast in the first person and mockingly bylined as something penned by "Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin," it's not an actual open letter to Americans written by the Russian president. It's a political opinion piece that uses a "literary ventriloquism" device through which an author expresses his viewpoint by putting his words into someone else's mouth highlighting what the writer wants the audience to understand by presenting the author's words as another person's, as if the audience were "inside the mind of" that other person. Coincidentally, nine days later the New York Times published a (much more temperate) op-ed piece about U.S. military intervention in Syria which was also bylined with Vladimir Putin's name. According to the UK's Guardian newspaper, the editorial had been offered to the Times by the public relations firm Ketchum (which works on behalf of Russian interests), and the idea for the article and its basic content did indeed come from President Putin, with some of his assistants crafting the final text. op-ed Last updated: 12 September 2013

['funds']

False

[Remainder of the letter can be viewed here.]Origins: This "open letter" from Russian President Vladimir Putin to Americans, putatively expressing that politician's viewpoints on U.S. military intervention in the Syrian civil war and other international matters, was published on breitbart.com on 3 September 2013 under the Coincidentally, nine days later the New York Times published a (much more temperate) op-ed piece about U.S. military intervention in Syria which was also bylined with Vladimir Putin's name. According to the UK's Guardian newspaper, the editorial had been offered to the Times by the public relations firm Ketchum (which works on behalf of Russian interests), and the idea for the article and its basic content did indeed come from President Putin, with some of his assistants crafting the final text.

Only about 6.8 percent of the (stimulus) money has actually been spent.

[]

One of the most common Republican attack lines against President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has been that the money isn't flowing to the nation's economy quickly enough. If the bill's supporters really wanted to help the economy swiftly, the argument goes, they should have spent the stimulus money right away rather than using it on projects that will take more time to get up and running. Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican, made that point on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos on July 12, 2009. "The reality is (the stimulus) hasn't helped yet," Kyl told Stephanopoulos. "Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent." It is a matter of opinion and interpretation whether the stimulus has helped the economy since it passed in February, so we won't rule on that. However, Kyl is mostly right about the amount that has been spent. The Obama administration publishes updated spending figures on Recovery.gov, the administration's website tracking the stimulus money. It includes a graph showing the week-by-week trend in spending, which illustrates how it has steadily increased. As of July 3, $60.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent, according to the chart. If you divide this by the full stimulus amount of $787 billion, you get 7.7 percent—a bit higher than Kyl's 6.8 percent, but in the ballpark. It appears that Kyl was a few weeks out of date in his statistics. The figure spent by June 19 was 6.7 percent; in the subsequent two weeks of reported data, the government shelled out an additional $7.5 billion, boosting the percentage slightly. But on the larger point, Kyl is accurate: a relatively small portion of the stimulus has been spent. So we find his claim Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Stimulus']

True

One of the most common Republican attack lines against President Barack Obama's $787 billion economic stimulus package has been that the money isn't flowing to the nation's economy quickly enough. If the bill's supporters really wanted to help the economy quickly, the argument goes, they should have spent the stimulus money right away rather than using it on projects that will take more time to get up and running.Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., the No. 2 Senate Republican, made that point on ABC'sThis Week With George Stephanopouloson July 12, 2009.The reality is (the stimulus) hasn't helped yet, Kyl told Stephanopoulos. Only about 6.8 percent of the money has actually been spent.It's a matter of opinion and interpretation whether the stimulus has helped the economy since it passed in February. So we won't rule on that. But Kyl is mostly right about the amount that's been spent.The Obama administration publishes updated spending figures on Recovery.gov, the administration's Web site tracking the stimulus money. It includesa graphshowing the week-by-week trend in spending, which shows how it has steadily increased.As of July 3, $60.4 billion in stimulus money had been spent, according to the chart. If you divide this by the full stimulus amount of $787 billion, you get 7.7 percent a bit higher than Kyl's 6.8 percent, but in the ballpark. It appears that Kyl was a few weeks out of date in his statistics. The figure spent by June 19 was 6.7 percent; in the subsequent two weeks of reported data, the government shelled out an additional $7.5 billion, boosting the percentage slightly.But on the larger point, Kyl is accurate: A relatively small portion of the stimulus has been spent. So we find his claim Mostly True.

Did Maroon 5 Donate Their Super Bowl Halftime Show Earnings to Charity?

["A charitable donation didn't spare the band from criticism for accommodating the NFL."]

On 3 February 2019, Super Bowl Sunday, the viral news and entertainment site LADbible.com reported that the pop music band and Super Bowl LIII halftime act Maroon 5 had donated their "entire $500,000 Super Bowl fee" to a children's charity: reported Although it's true that Maroon 5 partnered with their label Interscope Records and the National Football League (NFL) in making a $500,000 donation to the children's charity Big Brothers Big Sisters of America, the money didn't come out of the band's performance fee. NFL spokesman Brian McCarthy clarified in an email that Super Bowl halftime acts don't receive performance fees. McCarthy referred us to a statement from Maroon 5 lead singer Adam Levine provided to People magazine that said: "Playing the Super Bowl has been a dream of our band for a long time. We thank the NFL for the opportunity and also to them, along with Interscope Records, for making this donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, which will have a major impact for children across the country." People Maroon 5 followed the lead of rapper Travis Scott, who only agreed to perform at the Super Bowl after the NFL vowed to make a $500,000 donation to Dream Corps, a social justice-oriented non-profit founded by Van Jones in 2015. non-profit The large donations to charitable organizations were the result of the mounting pressure the NFL was facing over what critics called the "blacklisting" by the league of former San Francisco 49ers quarterback Colin Kaepernick. In 2016, Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before NFL games in protest over police violence against black Americans. As his protest spread and was adopted by other players in the league, so did the backlash. In reference to players' kneeling before games, President Donald Trump in September 2017 stated: Wouldnt you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! Hes fired. Hes fired! stated Kaepernick hasn't played since opting out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in 2017 and has filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing team owners of colluding in not signing him. grievance As a result of the controversy, the NFL had trouble securing halftime acts for Super Bowl LIII, with A-list entertainers such as Rihanna, Cardi B, Jay-Z, and Pink declining to perform in solidarity with Kaepernick. In an interview with the Associated Press, rapper Cardi B said, I got to sacrifice a lot of money to perform. But theres a man who sacrificed his job for us, so we got to stand behind him. Associated Press Maroon 5's act of charity didn't save them from harsh criticism for crossing "the ideological or intellectual picket line," as Kaepernick's attorney Mark Geragos put it in an interview with ABC News. "In fact, if anything, its a cop-out when you start talking about, 'Im not a politician Im just doing the music.' Most of the musicians who have any kind of consciousness whatsoever understand what's going on here." ABC News Tracy, Brianne. "Maroon 5 and the NFL Announce $500,000 Charity Donation Ahead of Super Bowl Halftime Show." People. 31 January 2019. Ruggieri, Melissa. "Super Bowl 53: Travis Scotts Halftime Inclusion Comes Wwth Charitable Contribution from NFL." Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 14 January 2019. Landrum, Jonathan Jr. "Cardi B Declined Super Bowl Halftime with Mixed Feelings.'" Associated Press. 1 February 2019. Allen, Karma et al. "Maroon 5's Adam Levine Addresses 'Controversy' Surrounding Super Bowl Halftime Show, Teases Performance." ABC News. 1 February 2019. Langone, Alix. "Here's How Much Maroon 5 Is Getting Paid to Perform at the 2019 Super Bowl." Yahoo Finance. 3 February 2019. Bieler, Des. " Colin Kaepernick Thanks Rihanna for Her Super Bowl Boycott." The Washington Post. 5 February 2019.

['profit']

NEI

On 3 February 2019, Super Bowl Sunday, the viral news and entertainment site LADbible.com reported that the pop music band and Super Bowl LIII halftime act Maroon 5 had donated their "entire $500,000 Super Bowl fee" to a children's charity:McCarthy referred us to a statement from Maroon 5 lead singer Adam Levine provided to People magazine that said: "Playing the Super Bowl has been a dream of our band for a long time. We thank the NFL for the opportunity and also to them, along with Interscope Records, for making this donation to Big Brothers Big Sisters, which will have a major impact for children across the country."Maroon 5 followed the lead of rapper Travis Scott, who only agreed to perform at the Super Bowl after the NFL vowed to make a $500,000 donation to Dream Corps, a social justice-oriented non-profit founded by Van Jones in 2015.In 2016, Kaepernick began kneeling during the playing of the national anthem before NFL games in protest over police violence against black Americans. As his protest spread and was adopted by other players in the league, so did the backlash. In reference to players' kneeling before games, President Donald Trump in September 2017 stated: Wouldnt you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, Get that son of a bitch off the field right now. Out! Hes fired. Hes fired!Kaepernick hasn't played since opting out of his contract with the San Francisco 49ers in 2017 and has filed a grievance against the NFL, accusing team owners of colluding in not signing him.As a result of the controversy, the NFL had trouble securing halftime acts for Super Bowl LIII, with A-list entertainers such as Rihanna, Cardi B, Jay-Z, and Pink declining to perform in solidarity with Kaepernick. In an interview with the Associated Press, rapper Cardi B said, I got to sacrifice a lot of money to perform. But theres a man who sacrificed his job for us, so we got to stand behind him.Maroon 5's act of charity didn't save them from harsh criticism for crossing "the ideological or intellectual picket line," as Kaepernick's attorney Mark Geragos put it in an interview with ABC News. "In fact, if anything, its a cop-out when you start talking about, 'Im not a politician Im just doing the music.' Most of the musicians who have any kind of consciousness whatsoever understand what's going on here."

Senator Jeff Flake: Solar Energy Can't Power Lights at Night?

['A comment made by Arizona senator Jeff Flake during a town hall meeting was reproduced without context to make him seem ignorant about the basics of solar power.']

On 13 April 2017, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona participated in a town hall meeting with some of his constituents that, like several other such events held by U.S. Congress members in the early part of the year, proved to be contentious for the Republican senator. Flake encountered a raucous audience at a town hall meeting in Mesa, Arizona. Constituents peppered the Republican lawmaker with questions about President Donald Trump's actions in office, his broader agenda on climate change, the president's taxes, the Supreme Court, and Planned Parenthood. Much like other GOP town halls held since Trump assumed the Oval Office, attendees expressed their frustration with Flake, many accusing him of being a rubber stamp for Trump. Flake, like Reps. Jason Chaffetz, Mike Coffman, and Sen. Mitch McConnell before him, attempted to address the audience's concerns, though most of his explanations drew shouts and boos from the crowd. Although Flake's town hall did not appear to have a large presence of demonstrators like those at some high-profile congress members' events in recent months, he at times struggled to contend with fits of chanting and jeering from the crowd at the Mesa Convention Center. Not all of the questions were hostile, and some constituents applauded Flake for sharing his time. The senator extended the meeting by one hour to take more questions, but the mood frequently returned to a bitter note. "Can you just remind me when you're up for reelection?" one woman asked, prompting cheers from the audience. During that town hall meeting, Senator Flake engaged in a several-minute exchange with a constituent who urged the lawmaker to support efforts to promote alternative energy sources over fossil fuels and address climate change issues. One small portion of that exchange was later incorporated into an image macro that was widely spread online, making it appear as if the senator were ignorant about the basics of solar power. Portraying people as fools for claiming that wind and solar power technologies don't work when the wind isn't blowing or the sun isn't shining is a common trope. However, although Senator Flake did make the statement attributed to him—expressed as "you can't tell people we're gonna turn off your power at night because the sun isn't shining"—that trope has been unfairly applied to him, as his comment has been stripped of context that showed it to be not so foolish or unreasonable. As video of the town hall event captures, Senator Flake engaged a constituent (who introduced himself as a major in the U.S. Army Reserve and a recent graduate of Arizona State University with a degree in Sustainability) in a fairly extensive conversation about alternative energy sources, with the constituent advocating for the promotion of solar power technologies in Arizona, given that the state is blessed with an abundance of sunshine. In response, the senator did not dismiss the idea by expressing the absurd concept that solar energy wouldn't be available at night. Rather, Flake's contention was that battery technology was not yet sufficiently developed to store enough solar-derived energy to provide "base load power" to cities during non-daylight hours. Thus, if we wished to completely eliminate our use of fossil fuels, solar power would have to be supplemented by other non-carbon energy sources, such as nuclear power. This discussion of alternative energy sources begins at the 13:00 mark in the following video, with Senator Flake's now-infamous comment occurring at 18:20 after more than five minutes of back-and-forth that established the context in which he made it. As the constituent interrupted the senator's remarks by interjecting "battery ... battery" (contending solar energy can be harvested and stored), Flake responded by saying that "what we've gotta do is we've gotta have baseload power now ... you can't tell people we're going to turn off your power at night because the sun isn't shining." Clearly, Senator Flake was aware that solar-derived energy can be stored in batteries for later use, as the point he was disputing with his constituent was the state of the art in battery technology. Flake maintained that batteries couldn't currently provide "base load power" levels to cities, while the constituent countered by referencing a solar energy station built by Tesla on the Hawaiian island of Kauai. Renewable energy supplies are great because they produce power without filling the air with pollution. Yet, once the sun goes down, solar panels become pretty useless. But Tesla and Hawaii have a solution that will use the sun's rays both day and night using Powerpacks built at the Gigafactory. The Kapaia project is a combination of a 13MW SolarCity solar farm and a 53MWh Tesla Powerpack station on the island of Kauai. In partnership with the Kauai Island Utility Cooperative (KIUC), the project will store the sun's energy during the day and release it at night. The station (along with Kauai's other renewable resource solutions, including wind and biomass) won't completely eliminate the island's use of fossil fuels, but it will temper the need. In addition to using Tesla's station to combat the island's incredibly high electric bills, it's also part of a long-term Hawaii-state plan to be completely powered by renewable energy sources by 2045. Kauai has its own goal of using 70 percent renewable energy by 2030. With this project, the island is getting closer to that goal and can now produce 100 percent of the energy it needs during high usage mid-days and low loads via renewables during a brief period of time. Whether Senator Flake was right or wrong about the particulars of the current state of solar energy and battery technologies, he did demonstrate a working awareness of how energy from the sun is collected and stored, and he did not express a belief that dependence on solar energy would necessarily mean residents would have to go without power at night. The video of the town hall event shows that Senator Flake and a constituent disagreed about the current scalability of power gathered from the sun but were not in disagreement about the existence of solar technologies or the availability of sun-harvested energy at night. Nonetheless, the senator's remarks were misleadingly truncated and altered (replacing "power" with "lights") and shared online in a form that falsely suggested he did not understand how solar power works.

['taxes']

NEI

On 13 April 2017, Senator Jeff Flake of Arizona took part in a town hall meeting with some of his constituents that, like several other such events held by U.S. Congress members in the early part of the year, proved to be something of a contentious one for the Republican U.S. senator:Clearly, Senator Flake was aware that solar-derived energy can be stored in batteries for later use, as the point he was disputing with his constituent was the state of the art in battery technology Flake maintained batteries couldn't currently provide "base load power" levels to cities, while the constituent countered by referencing a solar energy station built by Tesla on the Hawaiian island of Kauai:

Did Robin Williams' Contracts Help the Homeless?

['Comedian Robin Williams was lauded for his charitable initiative towards the homeless in a viral Facebook post.']

In the wake of comedian Robin Williams' death by suicide in August 2014, an item about Williams supposedly requiring in his work contracts that "the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work" quickly spread far and wide online. Years ago, I learned a very cool thing about Robin Williams, and I couldn't watch a movie of his afterward without thinking of it. I never actually booked Robin Williams for an event, but I came close enough that his office sent over his rider. For those outside of the entertainment industry, a rider lists an artist's specific personal and technical needs for hosting them at an event—anything from bottled water and their green room to sound and lighting requirements. You can learn a lot about a person from their rider. This is where rock bands list their requirement for green M&Ms (which is actually a surprisingly smart thing to do). This is also where a famous environmentalist requires a large gas-guzzling private jet to fly to the event city, but then requires an electric or hybrid car to take said environmentalist to the event venue when in view of the public. When I got Robin Williams' rider, I was very surprised by what I found. He actually had a requirement that for every single event or film he did, the company hiring him also had to hire a certain number of homeless people and put them to work. I never watched a Robin Williams movie the same way after that. I'm sure that on his own time and with his own money, he was working with these people in need, but he had also decided to use his clout as an entertainer to ensure that production companies and event planners learned the value of giving people a chance to work their way back. I wonder how many production companies continued the practice into their next non-Robin Williams project, as well as how many people got a chance at a job and the pride of earning an income, even temporarily, from his actions. He was a great multiplier of his impact. Let's hope that impact lives on without him. Thanks, Robin Williams—not just for laughs, but also for a cool example. This account appears to have originated with an article posted by Brian Lord ("A Little Known Robin Williams Story") on 12 August 2014, recounting the author's experience in attempting to hire Williams for an event. That bit of information took off virally when it was quoted in a Facebook post made on 25 August by a user named "Perry Marshall," whom many readers confused with Penny Marshall, an actress/comedienne who was friends with Robin Williams throughout his life. As of now, this story remains unverified: We've seen no mention or confirmation of it by anyone who ever worked with Robin Williams, nor has anyone to our knowledge produced a copy of a Robin Williams contract bearing the clause in question. The Smoking Gun document leak site long ago posted what may have been a backstage rider from a Robin Williams appearance in 2002, but it included no reference in its text to a requirement for employing the homeless.

['income']

NEI

This account appears to have originated with an article posted by Brian Lord ("A Little Known Robin Williams Story") on 12 August 2014, recounting the author's experience in attempting to hire Williams for an event:That bit of information took off virally when it was quoted in a Facebook post made on 25 August by a user named "Perry Marshall," whom many readers confused with Penny Marshall, an actress/comedienne who was friends with Robin Williams throughout his life.As of now this story remains unverified: We've seen no mention or confirmation of it by anyone who ever worked with Robin Williams, nor has anyone to our knowledge produced a copy of a Robin Williams contract bearing the clause in question. The Smoking Gun document leak site long ago posted what may have been a backstage rider from a Robin Williams' appearance in 2002, but it included no reference in its text to a requirement for employing the homeless.

Did Millions of Canceled Cellphones Reveal Unreported Coronavirus Deaths in China?

['American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Chinese government itself does not know the true death toll from the coronavirus.']

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 In the first few months of 2020, as the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic sprouted in China, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology published figures showing a drop of about 21 million cellphone users and 840,000 landline users. According to The Associated Press, online data published by Chinas three largest cellphone carriers indicated that for January and February 2020, China Mobile Ltd. reported a drop of nearly 7.25 million subscribers, while China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd. lost 7.8 million subscribers and China Telecom Corp. lost 5.6 million in February alone. published figures As of April 2020, China had reported a total of about 81,000 COVID-19 cases and about 3,300 deaths from the disease. Some sources seized on the disparity between the numbers of afflicted and cellphone subscribers to assert that the true COVID-19 death in China had been concealed and vastly underreported. reported "21 Million Fewer Cellphone Users in China May Suggest a High CCP Virus Death Toll," proclaimed a headline in The Epoch Times. "China Is Lying About the Number of COVID-19 Deaths," declared the Panam Post: headline The Epoch Times declared It is true that intelligence officials outside of China believe that the country's government has understated the spread of the coronavirus and the damage the pandemic has caused there, as The New York Times, among others, reported in early April 2020: reported The C.I.A. has been warning the White House since at least early February that China has vastly understated its coronavirus infections and that its count could not be relied upon as the United States compiles predictive models to fight the virus, according to current and former intelligence officials. American intelligence agencies have concluded that the Chinese government itself does not know the extent of the virus and is as blind as the rest of the world. Midlevel bureaucrats in the city of Wuhan, where the virus originated, and elsewhere in China have been lying about infection rates, testing and death counts, fearful that if they report numbers that are too high they will be punished, lose their position or worse, current and former intelligence officials said. Bureaucratic misreporting is a chronic problem for any government, but it has grown worse in China as the Communist leadership has taken a more authoritarian turn in recent years under Mr. Xi. The Times reported again the following day that Chinese officials appeared to be pushing for quick burials of the dead and suppressing online discussion of fatalities in order to head off public opprobrium over the government's handling of the coronavirus outbreak: following day For months, the residents of Wuhan had been told they could not pick up the ashes of their loved ones who had died during the height of Chinas coronavirus outbreak. Now that the authorities say the epidemic is under control, officials are pushing the relatives to bury the dead quickly and quietly, and they are suppressing online discussion of fatalities as doubts emerge about the true size of the toll. Chinas official death toll from the coronavirus stood at 3,322 on [April 3], but medical workers and others have suggested the count should be higher ... As China tries to control the narrative, the police in Wuhan, where the pandemic began, have been dispatched to break up groups on WeChat, a popular messaging app, set up by the relatives of coronavirus victims. Government censors have scrubbed images circulating on social media showing relatives in the city lining up at funeral homes to collect ashes. Officials have assigned minders to relatives to follow them as they pick burial plots, claim their loved ones remains and bury them, grieving family members say. The ruling Communist Party says it is trying to prevent large gatherings from causing a new outbreak. But its tight controls appear to be part of a concerted attempt to avoid an outpouring of anguish and anger that could be a visceral reminder of its early missteps and efforts to conceal the outbreak. Those same public displays or discussions of loss could also feed skepticism over how China has counted the dead. Still, to believe that the drop in cellphone subscriptions experienced by Chinese carriers corresponds directly to unreported coronavirus deaths, one would have to believe that the Chinese government managed to misreport COVID-19 mortality in that country by a factor of about 7,000 ... and then let the cat out of the bag by openly publishing statistics about cellphone usage that revealed those unreported deaths. Perhaps some correlation exists, but as The Associated Press reported, the drop in cellphone subscriptions in China could also be attributable to reasons other than millions of subscribers' succumbing to COVID-19: reported A representative with China Mobile Ltd. said while the situation was related to the COVID-19 outbreak, it was not related to deaths, but changes in lifestyle. It was mainly due to reduced business and social activities resulting from the COVID-19 outbreak, a spokesperson with the company confirmed to the AP. Many customers in China have multiple SIM cards and it is common that they use their non-primary SIM cards to do these activities. A China Unicom representative acknowledged the difficult market forces at work: For the first two months of 2020, [we were] facing challenges such as market saturation, keen market competition and the novel coronavirus outbreak ..." Hao, Nicole. "21 Million Fewer Cellphone Users in China May Suggest a High CCP Virus Death Toll." The Epoch Times. 22 March 2020. Flor, Mamela Fiallo. "China Is Lying About the Number of COVID-19 Deaths." Panam Post. 6 April 2020. Lajka, Arijeta, "Drop in Cellphone Users in China Wrongly Attributed to Coronavirus Deaths." The Associated Press. 30 March 2020. Qin, Amy and Cao Li. "China Pushes for Quiet Burials as Coronavirus Death Toll Is Questioned." The New York Times. 3 April 2020. Barnes, Julian E. "C.I.A. Hunts for Authentic Virus Totals in China, Dismissing Government Tallies." The New York Times. 2 April 2020.

['loss']

NEI

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In the first few months of 2020, as the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic sprouted in China, the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology published figures showing a drop of about 21 million cellphone users and 840,000 landline users. According to The Associated Press, online data published by Chinas three largest cellphone carriers indicated that for January and February 2020, China Mobile Ltd. reported a drop of nearly 7.25 million subscribers, while China Unicom Hong Kong Ltd. lost 7.8 million subscribers and China Telecom Corp. lost 5.6 million in February alone.As of April 2020, China had reported a total of about 81,000 COVID-19 cases and about 3,300 deaths from the disease. Some sources seized on the disparity between the numbers of afflicted and cellphone subscribers to assert that the true COVID-19 death in China had been concealed and vastly underreported."21 Million Fewer Cellphone Users in China May Suggest a High CCP Virus Death Toll," proclaimed a headline in The Epoch Times. "China Is Lying About the Number of COVID-19 Deaths," declared the Panam Post:It is true that intelligence officials outside of China believe that the country's government has understated the spread of the coronavirus and the damage the pandemic has caused there, as The New York Times, among others, reported in early April 2020:The Times reported again the following day that Chinese officials appeared to be pushing for quick burials of the dead and suppressing online discussion of fatalities in order to head off public opprobrium over the government's handling of the coronavirus outbreak:Still, to believe that the drop in cellphone subscriptions experienced by Chinese carriers corresponds directly to unreported coronavirus deaths, one would have to believe that the Chinese government managed to misreport COVID-19 mortality in that country by a factor of about 7,000 ... and then let the cat out of the bag by openly publishing statistics about cellphone usage that revealed those unreported deaths. Perhaps some correlation exists, but as The Associated Press reported, the drop in cellphone subscriptions in China could also be attributable to reasons other than millions of subscribers' succumbing to COVID-19:

Did Trump Say This About His Plans for a Second Term?

['The president "has strained to define what his second-term agenda would be."']

During the build-up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump was often criticized for his inability to articulate any goals that he expected or hoped to accomplish during a second term in office if he were reelected. criticized A quote meme from late August 2020 reflected that criticism, putatively quoting the president as saying nothing concrete about his plans for the next four years other than that he would continue doing what he was already doing and would have "other things on [his] plate": This meme accurately reproduced a statement from Trump, although the meme's presenting it without any context made it sound like the statement was the only thing the president said about his plans for the next for years, which was not the case. On Aug. 26, The New York Times conducted a 40-minute interview with Trump over the telephone, covering his past three-plus years in office and the upcoming election. The Times' resulting article noted that the president had "strained lately to define what his second-term agenda would be" and quoted him as uttering the words reproduced in the above meme, but it also referenced Trump's offering "a list of what he has done and would continue to do," so the president did in fact provide some specifics about what he had, and wanted to, accomplish: article Beyond more of the same, [Trump] has strained lately to define what his second-term agenda would be. Asked at various points, even by friendly interviewers on Fox News, he has offered meandering answers. His fellow Republicans seem no more certain. They therefore dispensed with a party platform altogether, opting instead for a simple resolution of loyalty to the president. In the interview, Mr. Trump rattled off a list of what he has done and would continue to do, like increasing military spending, cutting taxes, eliminating regulations, reinforcing the border and appointing conservative judges. But so I think, I think it would be, I think it would be very, very, I think wed have a very, very solid, we would continue what were doing, wed solidify what weve done, and we have other things on our plate that we want to get done, he said. Baker, Peter. "Instead of Evolving as President, Trump Has Bent the Job to His Will." The New York Times. 27 August 2020.

['taxes']

True

During the build-up to the 2020 U.S. presidential election, President Donald Trump was often criticized for his inability to articulate any goals that he expected or hoped to accomplish during a second term in office if he were reelected. On Aug. 26, The New York Times conducted a 40-minute interview with Trump over the telephone, covering his past three-plus years in office and the upcoming election. The Times' resulting article noted that the president had "strained lately to define what his second-term agenda would be" and quoted him as uttering the words reproduced in the above meme, but it also referenced Trump's offering "a list of what he has done and would continue to do," so the president did in fact provide some specifics about what he had, and wanted to, accomplish:

CDC Recommends Mothers Stop Breastfeeding to Boost Vaccine Efficacy?

['Rumor: The CDC has recommended that mothers stop breastfeeding in order to increase vaccine efficacy.']

Claim: The CDC has recommended mothers stop breastfeeding in order to increase the efficacy of vaccines. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, January 2015]There's a rumor going around that the Centers for Disease Controland Prevention (CDC) ADVISES DELAYED BREASTFEEDING TO BOOST VACCINEEFFICACY. Origins: In January 2015, a long-circulating rumor about purported recommendations made by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) about breastfeeding and vaccines began to spread anew. According to claims made on blogs and social media sites, the CDC recommended mothers stop breastfeeding in order to ensure vaccines dispensed to newborn babies were fully effective. The rumor touched upon two often controversial baby care issues, vaccines and breastfeeding, and also tacitly suggested the CDC's focus was profit rather than what's best for babies. The claim referenced an October 2010 study published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal titled "Inhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines." At issue was the "Interpretation" portion on the study's abstract, which stated: study The lower immunogenicity and efficacy of rotavirus vaccines in poor developing countries could be explained, in part, by higher titers of IgA and neutralizing activity in breast milk consumed by their infants at the time of immunization that could effectively reduce the potency of the vaccine. Strategies to overcome this negative effect, such as delaying breast-feeding at the time of immunization, should be evaluated. As stated in the quoted portion above, the research pertained to studying the effect of breastfeeding in the direct aftermath of the administration of a single vaccine. The text clearly addressed the immediate effect of breastmilk on that one vaccine's efficacy, not an overall recommendation that mothers "stop breastfeeding" completely in order to increase the efficacy of all vaccines. The study inexplicably became the focus of scrutiny in January 2015, with one blogger claiming: claiming And now the authorities are recommending halting breastfeeding so their vaccines work more effectively! Despicable. Breastmilk alternatives such as infant formula contain synthetic nutrients, are full of sugar, GMO products, allergens, cow's milk products, have been shown to contain toxins melamine and BPA, and when combined with fluoridated tap water, and a microwaved plastic bottle, does not make for a great choice for any baby. On a more positive note, the study illustrates just how effective mother's milk is at killing viruses. Several blogs amplified the misinterpretation, entrenching the belief the "authorities" at the CDC had recommended a cessation of breastfeeding in order to ensure vaccine efficacy. Earlier iterations of the claim conflated the findings of a study with recommendations made based on those findings, exacerbating the confusion: Ten researchers from the CDC's National Centers for Immunization and Respiratory Disease (NCIRD) released the ridiculous paper, entitled Inhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines, which claims the immune-boosting effects of breastmilk are a detriment to the efficacy of vaccines. The paper goes on to say that, rather than remove vaccines so that breastmilk can do its job, women should instead remove the breastmilk to allow vaccines to do their job. The quoted portion directly above illustrated a key fallacy in understanding the context of the study. The "ridiculous paper" in question simply produced data gathered in the study of a single vaccine's efficacy. Its findings neither constituted an agenda nor a recommendation; they simply provided an example of ways in which the observed effect might potentially be countered. Putting aside confusion about the role and intent of medical science and its published findings, the claim can be proved false simply by reviewing the CDC's own published guidelines regarding breastfeeding, which largely defer to guidelines issued by the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP): guidelines Exclusive breastfeeding is ideal nutrition and sufficient to support optimal growth and development for approximately the first 6 months after birth. Infants weaned before 12 months of age should not receive cow's milk feedings but should receive iron-fortified infant formula. Gradual introduction of iron-enriched solid foods in the second half of the first year should complement the breast milk diet. It is recommended that breastfeeding continue for at least 12 months, and thereafter for as long as mutually desired. The CDC has also stated breastmilk is the preferred source of infant nutrition in all but a handful of instances: stated Health professionals agree that human milk provides the most complete form of nutrition for infants, including premature and sick newborns. However, there are rare exceptions when human milk is not recommended. Under certain circumstances, a physician will need to make a case-by-case assessment to determine whether a woman's environmental exposure or her own medical condition warrants her to interrupt or stop breastfeeding. The CDC has issued no guidelines whatsoever suggesting that breastfeeding should be delayed, either temporarily or at length, for any reason related to vaccine efficacy. Not only does the CDC not recommend mothers stop breastfeeding, that agency actively encourages nursing based on AAP guidance. The claim the CDC "recommended that mothers stop breastfeeding in order to increase the efficacy of vaccines" is a misleading one based on a 2010 study that simply observed the effects of breast milk on a single vaccine and neither made recommendations nor created guidelines about the cessation of breastfeeding in order to increase vaccine efficacy. Last updated: 19 January 2015

['profit']

False

The rumor touched upon two often controversial baby care issues, vaccines and breastfeeding, and also tacitly suggested the CDC's focus was profit rather than what's best for babies. The claim referenced an October 2010 study published in the Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal titled "Inhibitory effect of breast milk on infectivity of live oral rotavirus vaccines." At issue was the "Interpretation" portion on the study's abstract, which stated:As stated in the quoted portion above, the research pertained to studying the effect of breastfeeding in the direct aftermath of the administration of a single vaccine. The text clearly addressed the immediate effect of breastmilk on that one vaccine's efficacy, not an overall recommendation that mothers "stop breastfeeding" completely in order to increase the efficacy of all vaccines. The study inexplicably became the focus of scrutiny in January 2015, with one blogger claiming:Putting aside confusion about the role and intent of medical science and its published findings, the claim can be proved false simply by reviewing the CDC's own published guidelines regarding breastfeeding, which largely defer to guidelines issued by the American Association of Pediatrics (AAP):The CDC has also stated breastmilk is the preferred source of infant nutrition in all but a handful of instances:

Wal-Mart Check Theft Scam

['Accounts of check fraud being perpetrated at Walmart stores by employees and customers.']

Scam: Accounts of check fraud being perpetrated at Walmart stores by employees and customers. SCAM Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2007] Origins: The image displayed above supposedly reproduces a memo from an official with Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) warning employees about a multi-city check theft ring operating out of Walmart stores. According to the memo, Walmart employees had been using cell phones to photograph customer checks and then employing the information obtained from the images to produce fake checks used to buy gift cards. As for the question of whether this memo was actually written by a Louisiana official, we note that the Louisiana State Police (LSP) disclaimed the memo's appropriateness without denying that it originated within the DPSC: On Thursday, July 26, 2007, an unauthorized letter was distributed to employees in the Baton Rouge field office of the Louisiana Department of Public Safety and Corrections, Office of Motor Vehicles, concerning an alleged multi-city fraud and theft ring operating at Walmart involving Walmart employees. It was alleged in the letter that the employees of the store would obtain a customer's checking account information, which would be used to create fraudulent checks. This letter was not official or sanctioned in any way by the Department of Public Safety; unfortunately, it was made public. The Department will be conducting an internal investigation and, at the conclusion of the investigation, will take the appropriate corrective and/or disciplinary action. Members of the public should not rely on information contained in the letter. As always, consumers are cautioned to take steps to limit the disclosure of their personal information and to be aware of their surroundings. Regarding the content of the memo, we note that instances of check fraud have been tied to a then-new practice (used in some Walmart stores) of processing checks not by the "traditional" method of retaining them and submitting them to banks for deposit, but by using them as authorizations to initiate electronic funds transfers (EFTs) and immediately returning them to customers. In some cases, dishonest sales clerks have abused this procedure by deliberately failing to return checks to customers, then re-scanning the checks multiple times and using the ill-gotten proceeds to purchase gift cards and other merchandise. For example, TV station KTRK in Houston reported the following check-theft scam by a Walmart employee in December 2006: A former Walmart employee is behind bars for her role in what authorities are calling a check fraud scheme. When you write a check at Walmart, you hand it to a clerk who then runs the check through an electronic scanner and hands it back to you. Unfortunately, some Walmart shoppers did not get their checks handed back to them, costing them thousands of dollars. Pam Davis never thought writing a $37 check at Walmart would cost her thousands of dollars, but that's exactly what happened. She said, "I had gone to Walmart and written a check for $37 and did not realize I did not get that check back, which is the custom with electronic transfer. You are supposed to receive the check back." Davis says, and authorities confirm, a clerk at Walmart never returned Davis' check at the time of purchase, allowing the clerk to re-run the check through the electronic reader again and again. "Five times, they changed the amounts each time," Davis claimed. "It was almost $3,000." Authorities believe the clerk gave the checks to other people who then went on shopping sprees inside the store. Capt. Mark Herman with Precinct 4 said, "In some of the cases, they were getting $300 Walmart gift cards, clothing, just all kinds of purchases." Constables say the clerk did the same thing with checks written by other Walmart customers. February 2016 also saw the sentencing of a Walmart customer who, along with his wife, defrauded other customers of hundreds of thousands of dollars by peeking over their shoulders to obtain personal information, which the couple used to create counterfeit checks: A man who cashed $300,000 worth of counterfeit checks using personal information stolen by peeking over the shoulders of hundreds of Walmart customers was sentenced to prison. Robert MacVittie and his wife lined up behind customers trying to cash payroll checks at "dozens and dozens" of Walmart stores in 20 states and recorded them providing their Social Security numbers, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Melucci said at the hearing where MacVittie received a 34-month sentence. The couple would then use the victims' identities to create counterfeit checks, which they cashed at other Walmarts. Melucci called MacVittie, 35, and his wife Jennifer, 32, "the Bonnie and Clyde of counterfeit checks." More than 400 people had their identities used on the successfully cashed counterfeit checks, Melucci said. Although it is possible a similar type of fraud could be perpetrated by clerks surreptitiously using cell phones to photograph customer checks, we have not been able to verify that this specific form of theft is occurring, much less that it is taking place on a multi-city level by organized rings of Walmart employees. A few tips can be helpful to shoppers to avoid falling victim to this sort of fraud: Be aware of how the stores you patronize process checks. If they scan checks to use them as EFT authorizations, be sure your check is returned to you before you leave the checkout counter. Use your bank's website to monitor your checking account transactions online and notify your bank immediately if you spot any suspect transactions. Using credit cards (or debit cards) rather than checks generally makes it easier to challenge fraudulent transactions and limit your liability for illegitimate charges. Last updated: 7 February 2016 Mandak, Joe. "'Shoulder Surfing' Husband Gets Prison in Walmart Check Scam Targeting Hundreds." WTAE [Pittsburgh]. 4 February 2016.

['liability']

False

Origins: The image displayed above supposedly reproduces a 26 July 2007 memo (circulated as a PDF) from an official with Louisiana's Department of Public Safety and Corrections (DPSC) warning employees about a multi-city check theft ring operating out of Walmart stores. According to the memo, Walmart employees had been using cell phones to photograph customer checks, then employing the information obtained from the images to produce fake checks that are used to buy gift cards.As for the question of whether this memo actually was written by a Louisiana official, we note that the Louisiana State Police (LSP) disclaimed the memo's appropriateness without denying that it originated within the DPSC: Although it is possible a similar type of fraud could be effected by clerks' surreptitiously using cell phones to photograph customer checks, we have not been able to verify that this specific form of theft is occurring, much less that is taking place on a multi-city level by organized rings of Walmart employees.

Did 62°C Temperatures in Kuwait Cause Trees to Burst into Flames?

['Despite a series of images showing melted street lights and trees on fire, the temperature in Kuwait has not reached 143.6F.']

In July 2017, social media users shared videos and images of burning trees and melting streetlights, the purported results of a record-breaking heatwave in Kuwait during which temperatures soared to 62 Celsius (143.6 Fahrenheit). First of all, a 62 Celsius day has never been recorded. The highest temperature on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization, was 56.7C (134F) on 10 July 1913 in Furnace Creek, California. The highest temperature in Kuwait, 54C, was recorded in Mitrabah in July 2016. Although the footage of trees burning is likely real, the claim that these fires were caused by 62 Celsius temperatures is unfounded. temperature recorded The weather in Kuwait hovered around 50C during July 2017: hovered The web site Frontnews.eu shared one of the most popular videos of this claim, showing a tree burning on the side of the road along with the report that the temperature had reached 62C in Kuwait: shared In Kuwait, the air temperature in some places reached 62 degrees Celsius in an open area where there is no shadow. Users of social networks share videos of burning trees, bushes, and also note that because of the heat, gasoline in the car tanks exploded. This video was actually shot in Madinah, Saudi Arabia, and captured a palm tree that was struck by lightning, as the website alweeam.com reported (translated by Google Translate and edited for clarity): actually Madinah struck A thunderbolt struck a palm tree on the famous Sultana Street in Madinah. Following the heavy rains in the region today and some of its provinces, the fire broke out in the entire palm before the civil defense fire brigade began its work. A video clip was documented by a citizen. The burning process started gradually with the burning palm tree, and quickly spread to the whole of the surrounding area, causing danger to the firefighters before the fire brigade put out the fire in the palm and the surrounding trees. . . A second video purported to show a plant burning due to Kuwait's high temperatures: Although this video was shot in Kuwait, we found no evidence to suggest that the plant burst into flame solely because of high air temperatures. Local news reports (translated by Google Translate and edited for clarity) noted the cause of the fire was unknown: reports Firefighters extinguished a fire in a number of trees on the first ring road near the Martyr's Park. In the details, a report was sent to the operating room stating that a fire broke out on the first ring road. The Shuwaikh industrial fire station was called and the fire was extinguished. Firefighters are currently investigating. . . . A photograph of a melting traffic light also appeared alongside the claim about the high temperatures: alongside Although this image was taken in Kuwait, it dated back to 2013 and showed a street light that reportedly melted due to a nearby car fire. 2013 reportedly One final image was circulated as "evidence" that temperatures had reached 62C in Kuwait: According to the Kuwait Times, however, this image was manipulated. Meteorologist Adel Al-Saadoun, head of the Fintas Weather Observatory, explained that the temperature has never reached 62C in Kuwait and that such reports were just "fake news": explained Do not believe in fake news, warned meteorologist Adel Al-Saadoun, head of the Fintas Weather Observatory, as he debunked social media reports that temperatures in Kuwait reached 62 degrees. It is fake news not true, Saadoun told Kuwait Times. Kuwait has only recorded temperatures of a maximum of 52 degrees centigrade. Never in history has the temperature in Kuwait reached 62. As we speak now, the temperature is 49 degrees Celsius (at 2 pm yesterday), but people have been posting images of 54, 56 degrees the temperature inside the car is higher, but not as per our weather monitoring system. Saadoun said the mercury will continue to rise in the next few days till the end of July, but by the beginning of August, the heat will start subsiding. This has been the usual weather in Kuwait. This period is called the summer solstice. This is the period when the sun is right next to us up there, and we expect such weather in July, he said. World Meteorological Organization. "High Temperatures and Extreme Weather Continue." 7 July 2017. Chand, Eudore. "Shrubs, Palm in GCC on Fire Due to Heat? Watch Videos." Emirates 247. 7 August 2017. Garcia, Ben. "62 Degrees Centigrade Temperature Untrue, Fake News." Kuwait Times. 2 July 2017.

['share']

False

First of all, a 62 Celsius day has never been recorded. The highest temperature on record, according to the World Meteorological Organization, was 56.7C (134F) on 10 July 1913 in Furnace Creek, California. The highest temperature in Kuwait, 54C, was recorded in Mitrabah in July 2016. Although the footage of trees burning is likely real, the claim that these fires were caused by 62 Celsius temperatures is unfounded.The weather in Kuwait hovered around 50C during July 2017:The web site Frontnews.eu shared one of the most popular videos of this claim, showing a tree burning on the side of the road along with the report that the temperature had reached 62C in Kuwait:This video was actually shot in Madinah, Saudi Arabia, and captured a palm tree that was struck by lightning, as the website alweeam.com reported (translated by Google Translate and edited for clarity):Although this video was shot in Kuwait, we found no evidence to suggest that the plant burst into flame solely because of high air temperatures. Local news reports (translated by Google Translate and edited for clarity) noted the cause of the fire was unknown:A photograph of a melting traffic light also appeared alongside the claim about the high temperatures:Although this image was taken in Kuwait, it dated back to 2013 and showed a street light that reportedly melted due to a nearby car fire.According to the Kuwait Times, however, this image was manipulated. Meteorologist Adel Al-Saadoun, head of the Fintas Weather Observatory, explained that the temperature has never reached 62C in Kuwait and that such reports were just "fake news":

Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top.

[]

After a flurry of attack ads in the past two weeks, President Barack Obama this week released aTV adin which he spoke directly into the camera and discussed how his policy approaches differed from Mitt Romneys. He cited taxes as one area where they had different philosophies. Obama said, Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top.Well check whether this is an accurate characterization of Romneys plan.Romney has posted somekey elements of his tax planon his campaign website. Heres a summary of the provisions for individual taxpayers: Cut marginal rates by one-fifth on a permanent, across-the-board basis Eliminate interest, dividend, and capital gains taxes for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income below $200,000 Eliminate the estate tax Repeal the Alternative Minimum TaxTo analyze the Romney tax cut, we turned to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, an independent think tank that evaluates the tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates. The Tax Policy Center looked at two versions of Romneys tax proposal. We will use theanalysisof the more recent of Romneys two plans, which the group published in March 2012.The Tax Policy Center ran two sets of numbers, one that gives Romney credit for extending the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and for an annual adjustment in the Alternative Minimum Tax and one that doesn't. Under the analysis that gives Romney credit for extending the Bush tax cuts and the AMT, people in each of the 11 income ranges in the centers study saw a tax cut, with after-tax income increasing by anywhere from 0.3 percent for people who earn less than $10,000 to 19.8 percent for people earning more than $1 million per year. Under the other measurement, which we find is more appropriate, people in eight of the 11 income ranges got cuts -- all except the income ranges below $30,000. For those earning more than that, after-tax income would increase by anywhere from 0.8 percent for those in the $30,000 to $40,000 range to nearly 12 percent for those earning more than $1 million.So Obama is telling part of the story. Yes, there are substantial benefits for people at the top, but he ignores that most people in the middle and lower reaches of the income ladder would benefit as well. Using the calculation that does not give him credit for the Bush and AMT extensions, people earning from $40,000 to $50,000 would see a cut of $512 on average, while taxpayers in the $50,000-to-$75,000 range would see a cut of $1,122.Still, there is support for Obama's point because the Romney tax cuts are tilted toward the wealthy. The biggest winners under Romneys tax plan are those earning more than $1 million. That group accounts for less than 1 percent of all taxpayers, but would receive 26 to 31 percent of the Romney plans tax benefits, according to the Tax Policy Center's calculations.Our ruling Obama is correct that Romneys plan does indeed cut taxes for high-income Americans -- quite heavily in fact -- but the rich arent the only ones who would see a cut. Taxes would be reduced in lower income ranges, too. Still, the plan gives a large share of the benefits to higher income taxpayers. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.

['National', 'Message Machine 2012', 'Taxes']

True

After a flurry of attack ads in the past two weeks, President Barack Obama this week released aTV adin which he spoke directly into the camera and discussed how his policy approaches differed from Mitt Romneys. He cited taxes as one area where they had different philosophies. Obama said, Gov. Romney's plan would cut taxes for the folks at the very top.Well check whether this is an accurate characterization of Romneys plan.Romney has posted somekey elements of his tax planon his campaign website. Heres a summary of the provisions for individual taxpayers: Cut marginal rates by one-fifth on a permanent, across-the-board basis Eliminate interest, dividend, and capital gains taxes for taxpayers with an adjusted gross income below $200,000 Eliminate the estate tax Repeal the Alternative Minimum TaxTo analyze the Romney tax cut, we turned to the Urban Institute-Brookings Institution Tax Policy Center, an independent think tank that evaluates the tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates. The Tax Policy Center looked at two versions of Romneys tax proposal. We will use theanalysisof the more recent of Romneys two plans, which the group published in March 2012.The Tax Policy Center ran two sets of numbers, one that gives Romney credit for extending the tax cuts enacted under President George W. Bush and for an annual adjustment in the Alternative Minimum Tax and one that doesn't.

Could Kids with COVID-19 Symptoms Be Quarantined Without Parental Consent?

['An erroneous Facebook post swept across various countries in August 2020. ']

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 In August 2020, as states and school districts in the United States grappled with whether and how to reopen schools for the fall semester, multiple readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a social media post, shared widely by users in the United States, that claimed children who showed symptoms of COVID-19 could lawfully be quarantined outside their family home without the consent of their parents or guardians. shared widely The post, which typically began "For all the caring parents out there" and often warned "THEY WILL BE REMOVING YOUR KIDS & YOU CANT [sic] DO OR SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT!" consisted of an imagined conversation between a school teacher and a parent, as follows: Teacher: Sorry we have had to take your child to a testing centre [sic] as they were showing symptoms of corona (that means they could have a cold, temperature, a cough)Parent: Right so where is my child?HT [Head teacher]: I'm sorry I can't disclose that informationP [Parent]: Is my child ok?HT: I can assure you your child is in safe hands, in the mean time you need to self-isolate with your family for 14 daysP: No I'm coming to get my child nowHT: I'm sorry but if you arrive at the school we will have no choice but to call the police and have you removed from the premises.P: is this a joke? that is my childHT: I'm sorry but under the new covid act we have the power to remove your child without your consent if we feel the have symptoms.P: So when will I see my child nextHT: We will have a child service officer contact you. Now imagine this was a call from your Childs Headteacher I suggest every parent on my facebook gets off there [sic] ass and do some real research on the legislation of the covid act 2020 regarding the laws for children in school!!!! Versions of the post were originally shared by users in the United Kingdom earlier in August. Clues that the post originated outside the United States could be found in the use of the term "head teacher" (the British equivalent of an American school principal) and in the British spelling of "testing centre." The post also referred to a piece of legislation called the "COVID Act," claiming that the law authorized school authorities to "remove" children without parental consent if they presented symptoms of COVID-19. shared A "Coronavirus Act" was passed by the U.K. Parliament in 2020, but it did not give school officials the powers claimed in the viral Facebook post. Versions of the post were subsequently shared by users in Canada, and its claims about the "COVID act" were also false in that context. did not false The U.S. Congress passed no law in 2020 called the "Coronavirus Act" or the "COVID Act" or "COVID-19 Act," so that particular aspect of the post was also false in the U.S. context on the federal level. We also checked the actions of state legislatures around the country. Based on our examination of the National Conference of State Legislatures database of COVID-19-related legislation, no state had enacted any law that conferred on educational authorities the power to quarantine children with symptoms outside their family home without their parents' or guardians' consent. database As a result, the "COVID Act" Facebook post shared widely by users in the United States in August 2020 was not only based on an earlier set of claims that originated in an entirely different jurisdiction (the U.K.), but it also did not inadvertently refer to a different recently enacted law that authorized school officials to quarantine pupils. The post's claims were false. A law that empowers educational authorities to quarantine children outside their home without their parents' consent does not exist and is also highly unlikely to be passed in the United States. Several decades of federal court precedents have established that parents and children have a constitutionally protected right not to be separated. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that: federal court precedents wrote "Parents and children have a well-elaborated constitutional right to live together without governmental interference [...]. That right is an essential liberty interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantee that parents and children will not be separated by the state without due process of law except in an emergency." Like all rights, the right of parents and children to live together is not absolute, and can be curtailed, suspended, or outweighed by competing rights or by a broader public interest. For example, while the law recognizes an individual's fundamental right to move about as they please, there are circumstances in which state and local officials have the authority to temporarily restrict that right. That includes a quarantine or self-isolation order in which an individual who is known or suspected to have contracted a dangerous and contagious illness like COVID-19 is legally forced to stay home because of the risk posed to the broader community. State and local authorities can restrict fundamental freedoms in this way on the basis of something called the "state police powers doctrine," which we have discussed at greater length elsewhere. elsewhere Similarly, the right of a parent to live with and raise a child is not absolute. A child also has a fundamental right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional harm, as well as a right to a basic level of nutrition, shelter, and safety. Where those rights come into conflict, such as in cases where a parent neglects or abuses a child, or is proven incapable of providing care, state authorities can and do intervene to protect the rights of the child, and states can, and sometimes do, involuntarily terminate the parental rights of adults. involuntarily terminate However, because parental rights are regarded as fundamental, any law or official action that abridges those rights can be subjected by the courts to what is known as "strict scrutiny." Roughly speaking, this means that an especially high standard of justification is required any time the state seeks to curtail a fundamental right, and the state has the burden of proving that its actions or policies are not unconstitutional. strict scrutiny Carlton Larson, Martin Luther King, Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis, told Snopes the type of law described in the Facebook post shown above would be very unlikely to survive that kind of judicial scrutiny: professor Such laws would restrict the fundamental right of parents to raise their children [...]. To infringe such a right, the government would have to satisfy strict scrutiny, meaning the law must be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling state interest. Typically, this means if there are less restrictive alternatives available, the government must first use those. Fighting Covid would clearly be a compelling state interest, but this doesn't seem narrowly tailored. Quarantining at home with parents seems just as safe as quarantining in some government-run facility. So I suspect a court would quickly declare any such law unconstitutional. Similarly, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, a law professor and director of the Child Rights Project at Emory University, told Snopes that: director The U.S. Constitution protects parents from having children removed from parental custody without a showing that the parent is either unfit or poses an imminent danger to the child. The scenario you describe [the conversation presented in the viral Facebook post] is not consistent with any laws, either state or federal, of which I am aware. In the case of a parent suspected of extreme child abuse or endangerment, the authorities might prevent that parent from taking the child home from school, until an investigation and court hearing could establish the facts. In a medical emergency, if a child's quarantine or hospitalization were deemed necessary, the parent would be involved in any decisions and would have decision-making authority over where and how the child was to be quarantined. Rahman, Grace. "Can Children Be Detained Without Their Parents' Consent If the Authorities Think They Have Coronavirus?" Full Fact. 13 August 2020. Goldhamer, Marisha. "Canadian Children With COVID-19 Symptoms Can Quarantine With a Parent or Guardian." Agence France-Presse. 14 August 2020. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Kirkpatrick vs. County of Washoe et al. -- Opinion." 9 December 2016. U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. "Wallis vs. Spencer -- Opinion." 14 September 1999. U.S. Supreme Court. "Santosky vs. Kramer -- Opinion." 24 March 1982. Mac Guill, Dan. "Could People Be Fined for Refusing COVID-19 Vaccine in US?" Snopes.com. 11 August 2020. U.S. Children's Bureau. "Grounds for Involuntary Termination of Parental Rights." December 2016.

['interest']

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. In August 2020, as states and school districts in the United States grappled with whether and how to reopen schools for the fall semester, multiple readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a social media post, shared widely by users in the United States, that claimed children who showed symptoms of COVID-19 could lawfully be quarantined outside their family home without the consent of their parents or guardians. Versions of the post were originally shared by users in the United Kingdom earlier in August. Clues that the post originated outside the United States could be found in the use of the term "head teacher" (the British equivalent of an American school principal) and in the British spelling of "testing centre." The post also referred to a piece of legislation called the "COVID Act," claiming that the law authorized school authorities to "remove" children without parental consent if they presented symptoms of COVID-19. A "Coronavirus Act" was passed by the U.K. Parliament in 2020, but it did not give school officials the powers claimed in the viral Facebook post. Versions of the post were subsequently shared by users in Canada, and its claims about the "COVID act" were also false in that context.The U.S. Congress passed no law in 2020 called the "Coronavirus Act" or the "COVID Act" or "COVID-19 Act," so that particular aspect of the post was also false in the U.S. context on the federal level. We also checked the actions of state legislatures around the country. Based on our examination of the National Conference of State Legislatures database of COVID-19-related legislation, no state had enacted any law that conferred on educational authorities the power to quarantine children with symptoms outside their family home without their parents' or guardians' consent. A law that empowers educational authorities to quarantine children outside their home without their parents' consent does not exist and is also highly unlikely to be passed in the United States. Several decades of federal court precedents have established that parents and children have a constitutionally protected right not to be separated. In 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit wrote that:For example, while the law recognizes an individual's fundamental right to move about as they please, there are circumstances in which state and local officials have the authority to temporarily restrict that right. That includes a quarantine or self-isolation order in which an individual who is known or suspected to have contracted a dangerous and contagious illness like COVID-19 is legally forced to stay home because of the risk posed to the broader community. State and local authorities can restrict fundamental freedoms in this way on the basis of something called the "state police powers doctrine," which we have discussed at greater length elsewhere.Similarly, the right of a parent to live with and raise a child is not absolute. A child also has a fundamental right to be free from physical, sexual, and emotional harm, as well as a right to a basic level of nutrition, shelter, and safety. Where those rights come into conflict, such as in cases where a parent neglects or abuses a child, or is proven incapable of providing care, state authorities can and do intervene to protect the rights of the child, and states can, and sometimes do, involuntarily terminate the parental rights of adults.However, because parental rights are regarded as fundamental, any law or official action that abridges those rights can be subjected by the courts to what is known as "strict scrutiny." Roughly speaking, this means that an especially high standard of justification is required any time the state seeks to curtail a fundamental right, and the state has the burden of proving that its actions or policies are not unconstitutional.Carlton Larson, Martin Luther King, Jr. professor of law at the University of California-Davis, told Snopes the type of law described in the Facebook post shown above would be very unlikely to survive that kind of judicial scrutiny:Similarly, Barbara Bennett Woodhouse, a law professor and director of the Child Rights Project at Emory University, told Snopes that:

Did Biden Say He Grew Up in Section 8 Housing?

['It appears that some social media users misheard or misrepresented a remark made during an ABC News town hall. ']

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here In October 2020, a claim started to circulate social media positing that Democratic U.S. presidential nominee Joe Biden said that he grew up in Section 8 housing: This claim is based on something Biden said during an ABC News town hall on Oct. 15, 2020. But while Biden did mention Section 8 housing during this event a reference to a section of the U.S. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 that offered assistance to low-income Americans he never said that he lived in Section 8 housing. Section 8 housing What Biden did say was that he used to live in a building that "much later" became Section 8 housing. Here's a transcript of Biden's comment from ABC News: transcript Look, this is the way every other, how do most, like my dad, he lost his job up in Scranton and it took him three years to be able he moved down to Delaware to Claymont (inaudible), a little steel town. And sent us home to our grandpop to live with him. We finally got back, we lived in apartments. Became Section 8 housing much later, it wasn't -- it was just normal apartments. But it took him five years to be able to buy a home. Biden made this comment while he was responding to a question about why the Black community should support his bid to win the presidency. This portion of the town hall begins at the 1:24:50 mark of the following video. Biden's comment about Section 8 housing can be seen at 1:30:45. Biden did not say that he used to live in Section 8 housing. He said that he lived in a building that "much later" became Section 8 housing. Semuels, Alana. "How Housing Policy Is Failing America's Poor." The Atlantic. 24 June 2015. ABC News. "Read the Full Transcript of Joe Biden's ABC News Town Hall." 15 October 2020. Reuters. "Fact Check: Biden Did Not Say He Lived in Section 8 Housing." 19 October 2020.

['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.This claim is based on something Biden said during an ABC News town hall on Oct. 15, 2020. But while Biden did mention Section 8 housing during this event a reference to a section of the U.S. Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 that offered assistance to low-income Americans he never said that he lived in Section 8 housing. Here's a transcript of Biden's comment from ABC News:

Kid Rock, Jason Aldean Removed NY From Tour Over Trump Civil Fraud Ruling?

['In the verdict released February 2024, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay $355 million in penalties.']

In February 2024, a rumor went viral allegingKid Rock and Jason Aldean removed New York stops on a concert tour in protest of a judge's decision in a civil fraud case to make former U.S. President Donald Trump pay $355 million in penalties. judge's decision For instance, on Feb. 18, 2024, a Facebook post by America's Last Line of Defense went viral with side-by-side photos of Aldean and Kid Rock and the text, "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean Remove New York From the 'You Can't Cancel America' Tour: 'We Support 45'," referring to Trump's ranking as America's 45th president. post The claim spread on other social media platforms, as well, including X (formerly Twitter), where someusersappeared to show support for the singers. Days earlier, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay the penalties in a sweeping civil fraud verdict, finding he had lied for years about his wealth on financial statements for loans and to make real-estate deals, The Associated Press reported. other social media platforms users The Associated Press reported Conservative pundit Brigitte Gabriel wrote, for example: "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean have responded to New York's extreme attack on President Trump by REMOVING the state from their 'You Can't Cancel America Tour.' This is a BIG DEAL and a sign of the silent majority rising again!" wrote (Screenshot via X) However, the claim about Aldean and Kid Rock was fictional. While they have indeed headlined concerts together before, there appeared to be no evidence of a "You Can't Cancel America Tour," like the posts claimed. Since the tour was made up, so was the notion they had removed New York dates due to their feelings on Trump. headlined concerts no evidence The rumor stemmed from an articleby The Dunning-Kruger Times, a site that is part of a network of websites and social media accounts operated by America's Last Line of Defense's (ALLOD). The article stated: article stated 'We support 45 [referring to Trump],' the tour's website announced, 'Therefore, we won't be bringing the tour to the state that has treated him so poorly.' The tour was set to play more than a dozen dates in New York, adding untold millions to local economies and giving patriotic Americans living in a liberal nightmare the chance to have a night to themselves. The Dunning-Kruger Times describes its output as satirical. The website's "About Us" section states: About Us Everything on this website is fiction. It is not a lie and it is not fake news because it is not real. If you believe that it is real, you should have your head examined. Any similarities between this site's pure fantasy and actual people, places, and events are purely coincidental and all images should be considered altered and satirical. See above if you're still having an issue with that satire thing. The website's creators callpeople who believe its stories "taters." The website states: call 'Taters' are the conservative fans of America's Last Line of Defense. They are fragile, frightened, mostly older caucasian Americans. They believe nearly anything. While we go out of our way to educate them that not everything they agree with is true, they are still old, typically ignorant, and again very afraid of everything. Kid Rock has been a vocal supporter of Trump. Also, Trump oncedefendedAldean amid accusations of racist imagery in his "Try That In A Small Town" music video. vocal defended We've fact-checked numerous satirical claims stemming from Dunning-Kruger Times, including one about Aldean supposedly saying Garth Brooks was not welcome at Toby Keith's candlelight vigil and another about Mark Wahlberg supposedly joining Kid Rock and Aldean on tour. about supposedly For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why "About Us." Dunning-Kruger-Times.Com, 1 Aug. 2022, https://dunning-kruger-times.com/about-us/. Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. "Here's a Look inside Donald Trump's $355 Million Civil Fraud Verdict." AP News, 17 Feb. 2024, https://apnews.com/article/trump-fraud-letitia-james-new-york-engoron-38bc3a7f2ccb22555c026e9bf70fd5bb.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean Remove New York from the 'You Can't Cancel America' Tour: 'We Support 45.'" Dunning-Kruger-Times.Com, 18 Feb. 2024, https://dunning-kruger-times.com/kid-rock-and-jason-aldean-removes-new-york-from-the-you-cant-cancel-america-tour-we-support-45/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. PerryCook, Taija. "Is Mark Wahlberg Joining Jason Aldean and Kid Rock on Tour?" Snopes, 12 Dec. 2023, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/is-mark-wahlberg-joining-jason-aldean-and-kid-rock-on-tour/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. PerryCook, Taija. "Jason Aldean Said Garth Brooks Was 'Absolutely Not Welcome' at Toby Keith's Vigil?" Snopes, 13 Feb. 2024, https://www.snopes.com//fact-check/aldean-brooks-keiths-vigil/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. Sforza, Lauren. "Trump Defends Jason Aldean amid Song Controversy." The Hill, 20 July 2023, https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/4107561-trump-defends-jason-aldean-amid-song-controversy/.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024. Walker, Jackson. "Kid Rock Doubles down on Trump Support: 'Toughest Son of a B**** on Earth.'" WPDE, 12 Dec. 2023, https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/kid-rock-doubles-down-on-trump-support-toughest-son-of-a-b-on-earth-president-2024-race-biden-trump-tucker-carlson-presidential-election-republican-gop-race-haley-desantis-nashville-music.Accessed 20 Feb. 2024.

['loan']

False

In February 2024, a rumor went viral allegingKid Rock and Jason Aldean removed New York stops on a concert tour in protest of a judge's decision in a civil fraud case to make former U.S. President Donald Trump pay $355 million in penalties.For instance, on Feb. 18, 2024, a Facebook post by America's Last Line of Defense went viral with side-by-side photos of Aldean and Kid Rock and the text, "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean Remove New York From the 'You Can't Cancel America' Tour: 'We Support 45'," referring to Trump's ranking as America's 45th president.The claim spread on other social media platforms, as well, including X (formerly Twitter), where someusersappeared to show support for the singers. Days earlier, a New York judge ordered Trump to pay the penalties in a sweeping civil fraud verdict, finding he had lied for years about his wealth on financial statements for loans and to make real-estate deals, The Associated Press reported.Conservative pundit Brigitte Gabriel wrote, for example: "Kid Rock and Jason Aldean have responded to New York's extreme attack on President Trump by REMOVING the state from their 'You Can't Cancel America Tour.' This is a BIG DEAL and a sign of the silent majority rising again!"However, the claim about Aldean and Kid Rock was fictional. While they have indeed headlined concerts together before, there appeared to be no evidence of a "You Can't Cancel America Tour," like the posts claimed. Since the tour was made up, so was the notion they had removed New York dates due to their feelings on Trump.The rumor stemmed from an articleby The Dunning-Kruger Times, a site that is part of a network of websites and social media accounts operated by America's Last Line of Defense's (ALLOD). The article stated:The Dunning-Kruger Times describes its output as satirical. The website's "About Us" section states:The website's creators callpeople who believe its stories "taters." The website states:Kid Rock has been a vocal supporter of Trump. Also, Trump oncedefendedAldean amid accusations of racist imagery in his "Try That In A Small Town" music video.We've fact-checked numerous satirical claims stemming from Dunning-Kruger Times, including one about Aldean supposedly saying Garth Brooks was not welcome at Toby Keith's candlelight vigil and another about Mark Wahlberg supposedly joining Kid Rock and Aldean on tour.For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor.

Did Anthony Kennedy Resign from the Supreme Court to Protect His Son?

["The 81-year-old justice's resignation announcement triggered a spate of conspiracy posts focused on his son's connections to Donald Trump and Deutsche Bank."]

Any occasion on which a member of the U.S. Supreme Court leaves the bench through retirement or death is a significant political event, providing the incumbent president with the opportunity to nominate a successor who is ideologically aligned with the party in power and, in most cases, will remain on the bench for decades to come. The requirement that a Supreme Court nominee be confirmed by a vote of the U.S. Senate often ignites bitter conflicts between the two parties in that chamber. When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues. Justice Kennedy, 81, had been a critical swing vote on the sharply polarized court for nearly three decades, embracing liberal views on gay rights, abortion, and the death penalty while helping conservatives trim voting rights, block gun control measures, and unleash campaign spending by corporations. His replacement by a conservative justice, something Mr. Trump vowed to his supporters, could imperil a variety of landmark Supreme Court precedents on social issues where Justice Kennedy frequently sided with his liberal colleagues, particularly on abortion. Many critics, still smarting over the Republicans' successful and unprecedented efforts to block the approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia, immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment. The details of this conspiracy theory were somewhat hazy, with most versions seemingly implying that President Trump somehow leveraged his financial connections with Kennedy's son, Justin, to convince or coerce the jurist to retire ahead of the November 2018 U.S. mid-term elections, during which Democrats might pick up enough Senate seats to block confirmation of Trump's preferred nominee. The most coherent form of the conspiracy theory posited that Kennedy's retirement was a sudden and unexpected event, a strategic move intended to allow Trump to nominate a friendly successor who would vote favorably on any issues involving Justin Kennedy that might come before the court as a result of the ongoing Mueller investigation into Russian election interference. As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked, that went back many years to a time when many other banks were hesitant to do business with Trump. Mr. Trump was quick to note this connection in the moments after his first address to Congress in February 2017. As he made his way out of the chamber, Mr. Trump paused to chat with the justice, saying, "Say hello to your boy." Mr.

['mortgage']

NEI

When Justice Anthony M. Kennedy announced his imminent retirement at the end of June 2018, it set the stage for a particularly momentous shift in the makeup of the Supreme Court, as Kennedy had long been the bridge between the court's liberal and conservative sides on a number of contentious social issues: Many critics still smarting over the Republicans' successful (and unprecedented) efforts at blocking approval of Merrick Garland, who had been nominated by outgoing president Barack Obama in 2016 after the death of Justice Antonin Scalia -- thus allowing incoming president Donald Trump the opportunity to fill the vacant court seat instead -- immediately jumped on a conspiracy theory involving the timing of Kennedy's resignation and his son's employment:As the New York Times noted, Donald Trump did have a business relationship with Deutsche Bank, where Justin Kennedy once worked (he left the company in 2009), that went back many years to a time when many other banks were leery of doing business with Trump:And, of course, many news outlets have reported on the potentially suspect coincidence that right about the time Trump was sworn in as U.S. president, Deutsche Bank was fined an aggregate $630 million for their involvement in a $10 billion Russian money-laundering scheme and Deutsche Bank's records were later reportedly subpoenaed by special prosecutor Robert Muellers investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. elections:Moreover, Politico reported back in April 2017 (before the Mueller investigation into Russian interference was even underway) that the Trump White House might have been utilizing connections between Trump's and Kennedy's children to ease the elder Kennedy into retirement. Notably, Politico referenced Justin Kennedy's having a connection with Donald Trump, Jr., not President Trump himself, and made no mention of Deutsche Bank:

Message Under the Stamp

['A message hidden under the stamp of a letter from a POW camp tells the real story?']

The family of a POW is reassured by letters sent by their son until they steam off the stamp and read what is written there. During World War II, Beth Lynn's oldest son, Robert, joined the navy. Even before the outbreak of the war, the boy had dreamed of being a sailor. He was a very dutiful son, and he wrote to his mother regularly, at least once a week, sometimes more often. After his ship went into combat in the Pacific, Robert continued to write regularly. Sometimes he had to be very careful about what he said to avoid betraying any military secrets that might then fall into the hands of the enemy. Letters often arrived with lines cut out of them by navy censors. These letters could be delayed for days, even weeks, due to the uncertainties of mail delivery from a combat zone. But eventually, they would show up in a bunch, much to the relief of Mrs. Lynn. So she was not too concerned when a couple of weeks went by without receiving the customary letters from her son. However, when the weeks stretched into months, Mrs. Lynn became deeply concerned. Finally, she contacted the Department of the Navy. After a long runaround and a great deal of red tape, Mrs. Lynn learned that her son's ship had been sunk off one of the Pacific islands, which she couldn't be told "for security reasons." The navy was not sure whether her son had been killed or captured by the Japanese. It was known that many Japanese ships had been in the vicinity when the ship went down, and it was assumed that at least some of the crewmen had been captured. Mrs. Lynn was devastated. But she took some small comfort in the possibility that Robert had not been killed but had been captured and taken to Japan and would be returned after the war. She clung to this fragile hope for many months. Then one day, her prayers seemed to have been answered. She received a telephone call from the navy. A letter from Robert had arrived from Japan. Naturally, the government had intercepted all correspondence from the enemy and read it before passing it on. But this letter was perfectly harmless and would doubtless relieve her mind greatly. They would send it on to her. Mrs. Lynn waited anxiously for the letter to arrive from Washington. It came three days later. It was written on thin, light blue paper. The letter didn't contain much hard information. Robert merely reported that his ship had been sunk and he had been captured and taken to Japan. He was now in a Japanese prison camp. He said that though he missed his family greatly and wanted more than anything else to be home, his captors were treating him quite well. Mrs. Lynn was almost hysterical with relief. She read the letter over and over again. Then she looked at the envelope. It had a Japanese stamp. A Japanese wartime stamp would be quite rare in the United States, she reasoned. And her nephew collected stamps. He would be thrilled to add this to his collection. So Mrs. Lynn steamed the stamp off the envelope. And there, in tiny printing where the stamp had been, was this message: They've cut off my hands. A family in Kewanee (a town of 17,000, 20 miles away) had a son in the military, in a Japanese prisoner-of-war camp. They received a letter from him, in which he asked them to be sure to save the stamp; he wanted to add it to his collection after the war. This puzzled the family; the boy had never collected stamps. They soaked off the stamp. Under the stamp, he had written, "They have cut out my tongue." The blood-chilling tale of the "message under the stamp" dates to 1866 when it was set during the American Civil War. In those early days, the maimed serviceman was a Confederate lad held in a northern prison camp. Under the stamp on the letter home to his momma was found the first grisly message: "My God! They've cut out my tongue." Though the oldest sighting on record, it's by no means the only one. In common with a number of atrocity rumors, old tales of horror and vilification are revamped to fit new circumstances as different enemies and conflicts arise. Witness the following British telling from 1918, gathered near the end of World War I: A clergyman was seated in a local restaurant. Opposite him at the table, a stranger recited the rumor with all the drama and dogma of a religious fanatic. "This friend of mine's boy," the stranger first confided, "is in a Boche prison camp. He sends a letter home and tells how things are all right with him and all that. It seems he likes everything, even the stamp on the letter. That stamp, he tells his ma, is a rare one, and she ought to soak it off for little Alf's stamp collection." "Now," the stranger revealed, "they ain't got no little Alf in the whole family. But my friend does what their boy says. They steam off the stamp." The stranger's eyes glistened. His lips became thin and taut as he said, "Underneath the stamp, they find a message that the boy couldn't put in the letter." The man seemed completely overcome by the emotional impact of his own story. His voice became shrill, and each word was emphasized as though he wanted everyone within earshot to keep it in their minds forever. "It says," he went on, "they've torn out my tongue!" Though stunned by the story, the clergyman had the sense to realize the tale was an obvious fake. He knew prisoners' letters bore no stamps. Had the apocryphal boy sent such a message, there wouldn't have been a stamp under which to hide such a communication. Around the same time the "Little Alf" tale was being used in England to focus hatred upon the Germans, the same story was circulating in Germany about the Russians. In that version, a boy from Munich locked up in a Russian prisoner-of-war camp conveyed a gruesome message to his mother by hiding it under the stamp. His revelation read, "They have cut off my feet so I cannot escape." Atrocity rumors fall into disuse during times of peace but spring up like mushrooms after a rain once the clouds of war again roll in. In 1942, during WWII, this same basic story again hit the trail in Britain. Sometimes the letter was received by a father. Sometimes it had come to a wife. And the messages sometimes read, "They are starving us" or "They have cut off my ears" or "They have pierced my eyes" or "They have cut off my hands." In the United States, it was told about an American serviceman who had been captured by the Germans or the Japanese. What we have here is a typical atrocity rumor, a handy device used to vilify the guys on the other side of the battle line and thus make the idea of killing them in combat all that more palatable. By portraying the enemy as unredeemably cruel and heartless, the other guys are rendered into cartoon figures who it is okay to hate. Maybe you might not be capable of bayoneting a 28-year-old man with two small children at home, a wife he loves, and a mortgage he sweats to meet the payments on every month, but turn him into a slavering killer who chops the hands off helpless prisoners, dashes the heads of newborn babies against walls, rapes nuns, and crucifies priests, and killing him almost becomes a sacred duty. Such is the purpose of these blood-boiling tales. They help convince the army in the field to fight like the Devil, and they help convince the civilian population back home that being in this war is the right thing to do. Atrocity rumors are never new; they are merely retooled as circumstances change. In the ramp-up days towards the Gulf War, we were told Iraqi soldiers had rampaged through a Kuwaiti hospital, grabbing premature babies up out of incubators and tossing them to the floor to meet their deaths on the cold, hard tiles. Never mind that this apocryphal hospital was never pinpointed nor the grieving families of these infants located, the story spread like wildfire, inflaming passions against the Iraqis and stiffening resolve to fight them tooth and nail if it came down to that. "I saw the Iraqi soldiers come into the hospital with guns. They took the babies out of the incubators ... and left the children to die on the cold floor." This was the story told by "Nayirah," the fifteen-year-old Kuwaiti girl who shocked a public hearing of Congress's Human Rights Caucus on October 10, 1990. Nayirah's testimony came at a time when Americans were wondering how to respond to the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait on August 2. Her story was cited frequently in the congressional debate over war authority, which was approved by only five votes in the Senate. President Bush mentioned it often as a reason for taking firm action. It was a major factor in building public backing for war. As many are now aware, the incubator story was the centerpiece of a massive public relations campaign conducted by Hill and Knowlton [a PR firm] on behalf of a group called Citizens for a Free Kuwait, for a fee of $11.5 million. After the war, the group revealed that it was financed almost entirely by the Kuwaiti government. A few babies did die during that conflict, but as a result of needed supplies not reaching hospitals, not because enemy soldiers threw them to the floor and left them to die there. Only someone with a very long memory would recall that similar "soldiers kill babies" rumors had been kited during numerous conflicts in the past. For example, in the 1600s, the English were likewise inflamed by lurid tales of Irish atrocities. They were told how the Irish dashed babies' heads against walls, stripped and raped wives in front of their husbands, and buried alive brave townspeople in mass graves. Each of these shockers, you see, is a common atrocity rumor and will be trotted out when a population needs to be inspired to fight. Women, children, and clerics are often cast in the victim's role in this form of rabble-rousing. Which should not be all that surprising; the object is, after all, vilification, and that is best accomplished by pitting the most helpless and appealing of innocents against the most vicious and vile of oppressors. In World War I, one of the most widespread rumors of this type concerned Belgian children maimed by German soldiers. Officials of the Catholic Society were said to have seen with their own eyes members of the German soldiery chop the arms off countless babies even as the tots clung to their mothers' skirts. A horrific extension of the rumor had German soldiers afterwards feasting on these severed limbs. Sometimes the tale was presented unvarnished (as above) as a one- or two-line bit of fact, and sometimes it was spun out into a horrendous tale: And in many cases, the story was enlarged upon, as for instance the harrowing anecdote of a prominent woman who was visiting a home for Belgian refugees in Paris and came upon a little girl, no more than ten years old. The room the child was in was rather warm, but still, the girl kept her hands in a pitifully worn little muff. "Mamma," she said, "please blow my nose for me." The prominent woman who was standing by is then supposed to have said, half laughingly but somewhat sternly, "A big girl like you can't use her handkerchief?" The sad-faced little girl made no reply. But slowly the mother turned her head toward the visitor and in a dull, matter-of-fact tone said, "She has not any hands now, ma'am." The woman visitor shuddered. "Can it be that the Germans...?" Tears welled from the eyes of the wretched Belgian mother. Like all the other atrocity rumors, there were no handless Belgian tots. All efforts to locate even one such child failed miserably. Yet as a rumor, it was unparalleled in the way it spread and the frissons of horror it sent clawing up the spines of all who heard it. Atrocity rumors are as old as the hills, and you should be on the lookout for them during times of international strife and lines being drawn in the sand. Yes, it's true man's inhumanity to his fellow man is boundless and that verifiable atrocities have been committed during numerous conflicts, but even so, it seldom pays to believe all the vilification tales passed wildly around during the build-up days towards a war. Whipped into a hate-filled frenzy in reaction to these tales, even the most peaceable of nations can be impelled by its outraged populace to throw itself into what it otherwise would have stayed far distanced from. War is serious business. The decision to engage in it or not cannot be taken lightly and should never be dictated by deliberate rumormongering. Though protection of the weak is a noble and worthy ideal, no one should be in favor of seeing the blood of his loved ones spilled in protection of the fictional.

['mortgage']

True

Sources: Brunvand, Jan Harold. Curses! Broiled Again! New York: W. W. Norton, 1989. ISBN 0-393-30711-5 (pp. 73-75). Jacobson, David J. The Affairs of Dame Rumor. New York: Rinehart & Co., 1948 (pp. 287-288, 291, 377). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker. Rumor! New York: Penguin Books, 1984. ISBN 0-14-007036-2 (pp. 17-18). ; Also told in: Cohen, Daniel. The Beheaded Freshman and Other Nasty Rumors. New York: Avon Books, 1993. ISBN 0-380-77020-2 (pp. 109-111). The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 76).

Facebook to Ban 'Amen Posts'

['There\'s no truth to a rumor that Facebook is banning "amen posts" (in which social media users are exhorted to type "amen").']

On 8 June 2016, the Facebook page "God First Ministries" shared a message claiming that posts containing the word "Amen" were being banned by the social media site: Speak up America! Don't let our Freedom of Speech be silenced!Share to show FB we will say AMEN! The comment section of the Facebook post displayed above quickly filled with messages (including many simply consisting of the word "amen"). On 17 June 2016, more than week after this message was posted to Facebook, it had accumulated close to 7,000 comments and had been shared more than 60,000 times. But curiously, Facebook had not deleted this message: In addition to the proliferation of "amen" posts on Facebook, several groups and pages containing the word "Amen" (such as Peruvian band Amen, the advertising agency Amen Communications, and the political group Trump Amen Time To Win) are still operating on the web site, showing that the word has not been flagged for removal, either. Amen Amen Communications Trump Amen Time To Win The Facebook post displayed here (like all "type amen" posts) is a version of the common like farming scams, in which a Facebook page shares a salacious, outrageous, and often inaccurate post for the sole purpose of gaining likes and shares. Typing "amen" or anything else below a post contributes to its popularity on the site and bypasses certain algorithmic controls Facebook has against scams in advertisings. This social popularity can later be leveraged for monetary gain. like farming popularity Facebook hasn't banned "type amen" posts. However, since Facebook is a private company and users of the site have to agree to its terms of service in order to sign up for an account, placing controls on its content would not constitute a violation of freedom of speech. terms

['share']

False

In addition to the proliferation of "amen" posts on Facebook, several groups and pages containing the word "Amen" (such as Peruvian band Amen, the advertising agency Amen Communications, and the political group Trump Amen Time To Win) are still operating on the web site, showing that the word has not been flagged for removal, either.The Facebook post displayed here (like all "type amen" posts) is a version of the common like farming scams, in which a Facebook page shares a salacious, outrageous, and often inaccurate post for the sole purpose of gaining likes and shares. Typing "amen" or anything else below a post contributes to its popularity on the site and bypasses certain algorithmic controls Facebook has against scams in advertisings. This social popularity can later be leveraged for monetary gain. Facebook hasn't banned "type amen" posts. However, since Facebook is a private company and users of the site have to agree to its terms of service in order to sign up for an account, placing controls on its content would not constitute a violation of freedom of speech.

Nearly one in four people in their prime working years are not working.

[]

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump got several things about the labor market very wrong, notably suggesting that the unemployment rate might be 42 percent. (It's not; that received a "Pants on Fire" rating.) However, at a Nov. 4 rally in Atkinson, N.H., Trump offered a statistic that was much closer to the mark. "At the core of my contract is my plan to bring back our jobs, about time," he said, later adding that nearly one in four people in their prime working years are not working. "They want to work. They're not working." When we checked with several economists, they indicated that the most commonly used age span for defining prime working years is 25 to 54. So we looked at the employment-to-population ratio for ages 25 to 54—that is, the percentage of people in that age range who are working, divided by the total number of people in that age range. (We also spot-checked the data for ages 18 to 64 and 25 to 64 and did not find significant differences from 25 to 54.) According to the most recent data from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics—covering October 2016—78.2 percent of the population between 25 and 54 was working. Flip that percentage, and 21.8 percent of the population between 25 and 54 was not working. So Trump is on solid ground saying nearly one in four. That said, we'll try to put this number in some historical context. Here's a chart for this statistic that goes back to 1948. The chart shows the percentage of people working. First, simply citing this figure ignores that the percentage of people in this age range who are working has risen steadily during President Barack Obama's presidency. The chart below shows that this ratio has risen by 3.4 percentage points since its most recent low point during the Obama presidency—74.8 percent in November 2010. So just citing the number overlooks that the figure has been trending in the right direction for the past six years. Second, it's worth noting that the current ratio is not all that far from its all-time high—81.9 percent in April 2000. Prime working age coincides with the prime childbearing and child-rearing age, and it makes sense that some people will choose not to work during at least some of those years. So it's not as if this number has always been pushing 100 percent and is now suddenly down dramatically. On the other hand, economists say that Trump has identified a legitimate concern about the current labor market—that the employment rate among prime-working-age Americans has not recovered to its level prior to the Great Recession. Despite more than six years of steady job growth, the employment-to-population ratio for those aged 25 to 54 has not yet returned to its immediate pre-Great Recession peak of 80.3 in January 2007. Today, it's still 2.1 percentage points below that peak. Moreover, every single month but two of President George W. Bush's two terms in office had a higher percentage than today's, even though Bush took office during an economic downturn, albeit a milder one. The trend line for men has been particularly problematic. As the following chart shows, the employment ratio for men in this age range was almost always above 90 percent prior to 1980, and in the immediate pre-Great Recession period, it was in the 87 percent range. Under Obama, it has rebounded from a low of 80.6 percent, but it was still only at 85 percent in October 2016—lower than its pre-recession level. In other words, we may be looking at a new, lower normal for prime-working-age employment, particularly for men—and unlike some other employment statistics, this is one that is not shaped by an ongoing surge of baby boomer retirements. Our ruling: Trump said that nearly one in four people in their prime working years are not working. The actual percentage is 21.8 percent, so Trump's phrasing is reasonable. However, putting it this way does ignore that this number has declined steadily under Obama for the past six years, and it also overlooks that it's not that far from the all-time low. Still, economists agree that Trump is raising a legitimate concern, since even after six years of improvement, the percentage today remains worse than it was prior to the Great Recession, suggesting that it might represent a new, more worrisome normal. We rate his claim Mostly True.

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

True

During the 2016 presidential campaign, Donald Trump has gotten some things about the labor market very wrong, notably suggesting that the unemployment rate may be 42 percent. (Its not; that got aPants on Fire.)

Did Pat Robertson Say 'Staring' at Melania Trump 'Can Heal Gays'?

["A 'hybrid' fake news site built on real comments made by Pat Robertson to assert the televangelist said looking at Melania Trump could 'cure gays.'"]

On 17February2017, the Newslo web sitepublished an articlereporting that televangelist Pat Robertson had said "staring" at First Lady Melania Trump was an activity sufficient to "cure gays": Newslo article When Christian Conservative leader Pat Robertson discussed the RNC convention in his TV show The 700 Club last July, he managed once again to turn the topic to controversy surrounding Melania Trumps speech. Robertson had agreed with many people when he said, Trumps speechwriter should be fired for doing or borrowing a few lines from Mrs. Obama. But then the televangelist got creepy when he started discussing Mrs. Trumps appearance, when he said, We mentioned the language in that speech, although she was absolutely gorgeous and I think thats why they wanted to put her on. She had a beautiful dress and shes a lovely lady. Trump knows when hes got a winner. Lately, hes been at it again. On the most recent episode of his show, the televangelist argued that the sole reason the mainstream media is targeting President Donald Trump is, once again, his wife. Robertson opined that the beauty of First Lady Melania Trump is so incredible that just by staring at her for a period of time, one can rid themselves of the plague of homosexualism. You know how there used to be this urban myth that men can prolong their natural lives just by staring at naked female breasts for 10 minutes a day? Well, this is sort of something similar to that, with one crucial difference: its not an urban myth, Robertson said. Shes an actual gay whisperer, that one. female breasts Newslo(along with sister sitesReligionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo)typically combine a tiny grain of truth with a balance of lies, as was the case in the above-quoted material. Newslo's trio offake news sites include a buttonallowingreaders toshow facts or hide facts," but since by default all their content displays in hide facts mode, most visitors are not aware ofthe fictional embellishments they add: Newslo Religionlo Politicops Politicalo fake news In this case, Pat Robertson's remarks about Mrs. Trump's being a "lovely lady" were genuinely something he said on CBNon 16 July 2016, but the balance of the Newslo article was fabricated, and Robertson never referred to Mrs. Trump as an "actual gay whisperer." Robertson is a frequent target ofNewslo and its brethren, where segments from the700 Club are regularly embellished to create share-worthy fabrications. remarks target

['share']

False

On 17February2017, the Newslo web sitepublished an articlereporting that televangelist Pat Robertson had said "staring" at First Lady Melania Trump was an activity sufficient to "cure gays":Lately, hes been at it again. On the most recent episode of his show, the televangelist argued that the sole reason the mainstream media is targeting President Donald Trump is, once again, his wife. Robertson opined that the beauty of First Lady Melania Trump is so incredible that just by staring at her for a period of time, one can rid themselves of the plague of homosexualism. You know how there used to be this urban myth that men can prolong their natural lives just by staring at naked female breasts for 10 minutes a day? Well, this is sort of something similar to that, with one crucial difference: its not an urban myth, Robertson said. Shes an actual gay whisperer, that one.Newslo(along with sister sitesReligionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo)typically combine a tiny grain of truth with a balance of lies, as was the case in the above-quoted material. Newslo's trio offake news sites include a buttonallowingreaders toshow facts or hide facts," but since by default all their content displays in hide facts mode, most visitors are not aware ofthe fictional embellishments they add:In this case, Pat Robertson's remarks about Mrs. Trump's being a "lovely lady" were genuinely something he said on CBNon 16 July 2016, but the balance of the Newslo article was fabricated, and Robertson never referred to Mrs. Trump as an "actual gay whisperer." Robertson is a frequent target ofNewslo and its brethren, where segments from the700 Club are regularly embellished to create share-worthy fabrications.

Major petroleum companies

['E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry.']

Claim: E-mail criticizes U.S. environmental regulations on the oil industry. OF AND INFORMATION Examples: [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] Bill Phillips spent nearly 50 years in the US oil and gas industry; most of his career was with the Phillips Petroleum Company. Bill is a descendant of Frank Phillips. Frank Phillips, along with his brother Lee Eldas (L.E.) Phillips, Sr., founded the original Phillips Petroleum Company in 1917 in Bartlesville, OK. Do you remember Phillips 66 gas stations? Phillips Petroleum Company merged with Conoco, Inc. in 2002 to form the current ConocoPhillips oil company. So, when Bill talks about oil and gas issues, I tend to listen - very closely. I think that you will find Bill's thoughts and facts very revealing, very compelling and very difficult to argue with. As you prepare to cast your crucial ballots this Fall, please think long and hard about the far-reaching, cumulative effects of the US political philosophies, policies and legislation that have contributed to the current and future US oil supply situation. Did you know that the United States does NOT have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, ExxonMobil, a "small" oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge ExxonMobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up as the value of the American dollar goes down. They will eventually bleed this country into printing even more money and we will go into runway inflation once again as we did under the Carter Democratic reign. This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States unlike, say, France actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endlessbillions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela to be used in propping up their economies. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democrat Party aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, off Cuba but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous oil-shale deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. In short, all Americans are paying a terrible price for the Democratic Party's perverse energy policies. I own some small interests in tiny, 4 barrel-per-day oil wells in Wyoming. We have 14 agencies that have iron-hand jurisdiction over us. If we drop any oil on the ground when the refinery truck comes to pick up oil from our holding tanks, we are fined. Yet down the road the state will spray thousands of gallons of used oil on a dirt road to control dirt. When it rains that oil runs into rivers and creeks. Yet a cup of oil on the ground at our wellhead is a $50,000 EPA fine plus additional fines from state regulating agencies. They treat oil as if it were plutonium that has the potential to leak into the environment. We are fined if our dirt burms are not high enough around a holding tank, yet the truck that picks up our oil runs down the road at 60 mph with no burm around it. People wonder why there is no more exploration in this country. It's because of the regulators; people who have lived their whole lives doing nothing but imposing fines on small operators like us for doing mostly nothing. So, America enjoy your $4.00 per gallon gasoline. Your dollar is now worth 0.62 Euro-Cents. The lack of American production of GNP, the massive trade deficit (as labor markets have moved overseas to fight insanely high union imposed labor costs in America) and the run away printing of money (backed by nothing of value here in America) has caused the dollar to become more worthless on the international market. And that's where our oil comes from. It's paid for with dollars that become more worthless everyday. If we had just kept par with the Euro we'd be paying $62 dollars per barrel for oil (42 gallons) or about $1.50 instead of $2.50 a gallon for crude oil. What the US government also does not tell you is that it is the leaseholder and royalty recipient of most oil production and receives 25% of the gross oil sales before we pay for electricity to lift the oil, propane to keep the oil-water separators from freezing in the winters. We pay a pumper to visit each well everyday plus we have equipment failures all the time. We pay for that out of our 75% of gross sales. The government does not share in any expenses to run any production well. So, if the Big Oil Companies are making record profits, then so is the federal government from it's 25% tax on every molecule of oil sold to a refinery in this country. Why isn't the government on the stand for "Record" profits? What you don't see is this 25% of the sales price of crude oil being siphoned away by the government. That money plus the road taxes, state taxes, etc. amounts to over $1 per gallon of gasoline you are buying while the governments only admit to about 50 cents per gallon. To all you Democrats, when you go vote for your candidate, a blazing liberal like Barrack Hussein Obama just keep in mind that their liberal spending habits will further decrease the value of the American dollar on the world market and your gasoline costs will hike even higher. As they introduce more give-away programs, raise taxes on everyone to pay people not to produce or work, your dollar will continue to dwindle on the world market and you will be paying $10.00 per gallon at the next election. Cheap hydrocarbon fuel is all over. Enjoy! Enjoy the fruits of your decision to elect these folks when you are there in that voting booth and you stab your pin through a Democrat's name. William "Bill" Phillips Origins: Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips). Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original: article I hadn't realized, until the hearings on energy that were held this week in House and Senate committees, that the United States doesn't have any big oil companies. It's true: the largest American oil company, Exxon Mobil, is only the 14th largest in the world, and is dwarfed by the really big oil companies all owned by foreign governments or government-sponsored monopolies that dominate the world's oil supply. With 94% of the world's oil supply locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States, the relatively puny American oil companies do not have access to enough crude oil to significantly affect the market and help bring prices down. Thus, Exxon Mobil, a small oil company, buys 90% of the crude oil that it refines for the U.S. market from the big players, i.e., mostly-hostile foreign governments. The price at the U.S. pump is rising because the price the big oil companies charge Exxon Mobil and the other small American companies for crude oil is going up. Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies. (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.) The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies: largest profitable non-public reserves Despite record crude prices, the major oil companies are struggling to access resources that are being jealously guarded by national companies with whom they are forced to establish partnerships. As paradoxical as it may seem, high oil prices do not mean a golden age for the likes of ExxonMobil, Chevron, Totalor BP. Of course, with a barrel of oil at more than 140 dollars, they are seeing major profits, but the future has never seemed so uncertain. The problem is access to reserves. The oil majors now control less than 10 percent of world resources of gas and oil, against 70 percent in the 1970s, according to figures released by the office of Ernst and Young at the World Petroleum Congress in Madrid. As a result they are being forced to explore in increasingly extreme conditions. The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves). reserves This is obviously a tough situation for the American consumer. The irony is that it doesn't have to be that way. The United States unlike, say, France actually has vast petroleum reserves. It would be possible for American oil companies to develop those reserves, play a far bigger role in international markets, and deliver gas at the pump to American consumers at a much lower price, while creating many thousands of jobs for Americans. This would be infinitely preferable to shipping endless billions of dollars to Saudi Arabia, Russia and Venezuela. So, why doesn't it happen? Because the Democratic Party aided, sadly, by a handful of Republicans deliberately keeps gas prices high and our domestic oil companies small by putting most of our reserves off limits to development. China is now drilling in the Caribbean, but our own companies are barred by law from developing large oil fields off the coasts of Florida and California. Enormous shale oil deposits in the Rocky Mountain states could go a long way toward supplying American consumers' needs, but the Democratic Congress won't allow those resources to be developed. ANWR contains vast petroleum reserves, but we don't know how vast, because Congress, not wanting the American people to know how badly its policies are hurting our economy, has made it illegal to explore and map those reserves, let alone develop them. Drilling for oil off of most of the Pacific and Atlantic coasts has largely been barred due to a moratorium imposed by Congress in the early 1980s and by an executive order signed by President George H.W. Bush (a Republican) in 1990. The congressional moratorium has to be renewed every year, and it has remained in place for nearly three decades through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. (On 14 July 2008, President George W. Bush lifted the executive order barring offshore drilling that had been signed by his father eighteen years earlier.) The congressional moratorium is due to expire on 1 October 2008 unless Congress votes to extend it. Some analysts have claimed that if the oil industry could extract oil and gas from oil shale in a cost-effective manner, oil shale deposits in the U.S. (particularly on the western slope of the Rocky Mountains, site of the world's largest such deposit) could produce viable oil reserves of about 800 billion barrels (three times the current proven reserves of Saudi Arabia). However, the cost and effectiveness of oil shale development (and the resource use and environmental effects attendant to accomplishing it) remain a subject of considerable debate, and oil companies remain barred from undertaking commercial oil shale projects on federal land: At best production is years away, while unpredictable oil markets, growing water demand, sizable electricity needs and climate change all pose potentially huge hurdles. Democrats have barred the Bureau of Land Management from leasing any federal land for commercial-scale oil shale projects. Skeptic Randy Udall of nearby Carbondale, Colo., argues that oil shale is but a poor cousin to other fossil fuels, with an energy content per ton less than one-third that of cattle manure and only slightly better than the potato. Any oil shale project in this region would mean new water demands on the Colorado River and its tributaries, vital waterways for much of the western U.S. and northern Mexico. That potential demand for water worries rancher David Smith of nearby Meeker, Colo., who relies on water from the White River that he fears will be diverted to the oil shale operations. The oil companies, Smith said, could help ease concerns by sharing in the cost of a water storage project. "They have not offered to do that," Smith said. Besides water, Shell's oil shale project would require far more electricity than the existing power grid could supply. That likely means construction of a new power plant. In this part of the country, the most economical way to fire a power plant would be with coal. But in the next Congress, lawmakers are likely to pass legislation to limit greenhouse emissions, and coal-fired plants are huge emitters of carbon dioxide. That would add to cost, ever oil shale's nemesis. The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. 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. As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration. pursued factors Last updated: 14 July 2008 Dechaux, Delphine. "Despite Rocketing Prices, Outlook Is Bleak for Oil Majors." Agence France Presse. 6 July 2008. Feller Ben. "Bush Trumps Congress; Moves First on Drilling." Associated Press. 14 July 2008. Forbes, Steve. "Will We Rid Ourselves of This Pollution?" Forbes. 16 April 2007. Guerrera, Francesco and Carola Hoyos. "Hidden Value: How Unlisted Companies Are Eclipsing the Public Equity Market." Financial Times. 15 December 2006. Ivanovich, David. "Despite 800 Billion Barrel Potential, Oil Shale a Hard Sell." The Houston Chronicle. 12 July 2008. Simon, Richard. "Bush Lifts Presidential Ban on Offshore Drilling." Los Angeles Times. 14 July 2008.

['taxes']

True

Origins: Several readers (including members of the Phillips family) have maintained to us that there is no descendant of Frank Phillips matching the description of the putative author of this piece, which itself appears to be a rewritten/expanded version of an earlier article (one not originally attributed to William "Bill" Phillips). Given the uncertain provenance of the "Phillips" authorship version, we'll address our analysis primarily to the wording of the (presumed) original:Ranking businesses according to "bigness" can be based on a variety of different metrics: geographic reach, scale of operations, market value, gross revenues, net profits, etc. Exxon Mobil is certainly one of the world's largest (in terms of gross revenues) and most profitable public companies. (Many of the world's largest non-public companies are also in the oil business.) The statement here about Exxon Mobil's being "only the 14th largest [oil company] in the world" refers to the amount of oil and gas reserves that company controls, and it is generally true that the major (public) oil companies have much less access to oil and gas resources than they did a few decades ago, most of which are now controlled by national oil companies:The statement that "94% of the world's oil supply [is] locked up by foreign governments, most of which are hostile to the United States" might be a considered a bit misleading since many of those "hostile" countries have relatively small oil reserves, while the country with the second-largest oil reserves, Canada, is U.S.-friendly (and both Mexico and the United States are also among the countries with the largest oil reserves).The subject of opening the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge to oil exploration and development is another issue that has been pursued across the years through a succession of administrations and Congresses, both Democratic and Republican alike. 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. As of now, both major-party presidential candidates, Senators John McCain and Barack Obama, are opposed to opening ANWR to oil exploration.

Donald Trump on Obamacare

['Rumor: Donald Trump issued a pithy criticism of Obamacare.']

Claim: Donald Trump issued a pithy criticism of Obamacare. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2012] I recently read an article on facebook attributed to Donald Trump about Obamacare. Here it is: Let me get this straight...We're going to be "gifted" with a health care plan we are forced to purchase and fined if we don't, which purportedly covers at least ten million more people, without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman says he doesn't understand it, passed by a Congress who didn't read it but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a Dumbo President who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we'll be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government who has already bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a Surgeon General who is obese, and financed by a country that is broke!!!! Origins: In the wake of a June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of health care reform legislation commonly known as Obamacare, the above-quoted criticism of that legislation began circulating online, commonly attributed to business magnate Donald Trump. This item saw renewed circulation in mid-2015, when Trump announced his candidacy for the 2016 Republican presidential nomination. However, this criticism didn't originate with any public statement made by Donald Trump: it's an anonymous bit of political humor that has been posted and reposted many times in blogs and social media since at least as far back as March 2010. posted reposted A number of sources (such as Fox News and CNSNews.com) have erroneously attributed credit for this quip to Dr. Barbara Bellar, an Illinois State Senate candidate who used it in a speech she delivered at a Chicago Women for Romney rally in August 2012. However, as noted above, this bit had already been repeatedly posted to online sites for more than two years before Dr. Bellar incorporated it into her 2012 speech (and she has acknowledged that she was not its originator): Fox News CNSNews.com acknowledged So let me get this straight. This is a long sentence. We are going to be gifted with a health care plan that we are forced to purchase, and fined if we don't, which reportedly covers 10 million more people without adding a single new doctor, but provides for 16,000 new IRS agents, written by a committee whose chairman doesn't understand it, passed by Congress, that didn't read it, but exempted themselves from it, and signed by a president who smokes, with funding administered by a treasury chief who didn't pay his taxes, for which we will be taxed for four years before any benefits take effect, by a government which has bankrupted Social Security and Medicare, all to be overseen by a surgeon general who is obese and financed by a country that is broke. So what the blank could possibly go wrong? Last updated: 8 July 2015

['taxes']

False

However, this criticism didn't originate with any public statement made by Donald Trump: it's an anonymous bit of political humor that has been posted and reposted many times in blogs and social media since at least as far back as March 2010.A number of sources (such as Fox News and CNSNews.com) have erroneously attributed credit for this quip to Dr. Barbara Bellar, an Illinois State Senate candidate who used it in a speech she delivered at a Chicago Women for Romney rally in August 2012. However, as noted above, this bit had already been repeatedly posted to online sites for more than two years before Dr. Bellar incorporated it into her 2012 speech (and she has acknowledged that she was not its originator):

Sharpie Anniversary Giveaway Scam

["Sharpie isn't giving away a giant set of markers to celebrate their anniversary -- the offer is another online survey scam."]

In February2016, links began circulating on Facebookpromising a treasure trove of Sharpie brand markers to users who completed a short series of steps: The embedded links led toURLs which were generated seemingly at random and didn't link to Sharpie's web site. Users who clicked through to claim the promised prize were routed to pages which appeared plausibly Facebook-esque(but werehostedoff Facebook): As evidenced by the above-reproduced screenshots, the associatedURLs don'tmatch the official domains of Sharpie or Facebook. The fake giveaway was another version of the common survey/sweepstakes scams which urge readers to share freebie bait on Facebook, which then spreads the scam to more friends and groups. Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users. Kohl's Costco Home Depot Lowe's Kroger Best Buy Macy's Olive Garden Publix Target Walmart scammers A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media: article Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.

['banking']

False

Most social media users are familiar with survey scams conducted in this fashion: Kohl's, Costco, Home Depot, Lowe's,Kroger, Best Buy, Macy's, Olive Garden, Publix, Target, and Walmart are among brandsused as enticementsbyscammers, many aiming to capturepersonal information and valuable page likes from Facebook users.A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureauexplained how to identify and avoidbad actorsimitating high-profilebrands on social media:

Obama Uses Own Money to Open Muslim Museum Amid Government Shutdown

['Is President Obama using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown?']

Claim: President Obama is using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the government shutdown. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2013] I recently read an article online stating that president Obama is using his personal funds to keep the international museum of Muslim culture open during the government shutdown. I was wondering if your site had any information regarding this. Origins: On 2 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown: article While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day One of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures. "During this shutdown, people will have to deal with some of their favorite parks and museums being closed," Obama told reporters. "Just keep in mind, they will always be there. The Grand Canyon and the Smithsonian are not going anywhere." Obama continued, "The International Museum of Muslim Cultures is sacred. That is why I have taken it upon myself to use my own personal funds to re-open this historic piece of American culture." The International Museum of Muslim Cultures closed its doors as parts of the federal government shut down after Congress failed to reach an agreement on spending. The fiscal standoff stems in large part from Republican attempts to block President Obama's healthcare initiative. By the following day links and excerpts referencing this article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered the item mistaking it for a genuine news article. However, the article was just a bit of satire from the National Report, a web site that publishes outrageous fictional stories such as "IRS Plans to Target Leprechauns Next," "Boy Scouts Announce Boobs Merit Badge," and "New CDC Study Indicates Pets of Gay Couples Worse at Sports, Better at Fashion Than Pets of Straight Couples." The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that: disclaimer National Report is a news and political satire web publication, which may or may not use real names, often in semi-real or mostly fictitious ways. All news articles contained within National Report are fiction, and presumably fake news. Any resemblance to the truth is purely coincidental. Nonetheless, Fox News host Anna Kooiman fell for this spoof during a Fox & Friends segment, reporting that "[W]e're going to talk a little bit later in the show about some things that are continuing to be funded. And President Obama has offered to pay out of his own pocket for the museum of Muslim culture ...": (For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.) International Museum of Muslim Cultures Last updated: 5 October 2013

['budget']

False

Origins: On 2 October 2013, the National Report published an article positing that President Obama would be using his personal funds to keep the International Museum of Muslim Cultures open during the current government budget shutdown:The National Report's (since removed) disclaimer page notes that:(For the record, we note that there is indeed an International Museum of Muslim Cultures in Jackson, Mississippi, but it is an independent museum and not a federally funded one.)

What are the consequences of illegally crossing the United States border?

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

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

['income']

False

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

Is West Virginia constructing a residential project for Syrian refugees that is being likened to a 'Sharia Zone'?

['A video shot at a public housing project makes numerous, factually challenged claims about Syrian migration to West Virginia. ']

On 5 March 2019, a conspiracy-minded Twitter account shared a video purporting to be from the site of a construction project funded by West Virginia taxpayer money for the purpose of housing 321 Syrian refugees. The video also claimed this was being done at the expense of regular Americans who, the man asserted, were being pushed into substandard housing. He stated that the area he was standing in would become a sharia zone, where no non-Muslims would be allowed to enter. Several factual problems exist with the assertions in this video. Chief among them is the fact that this video shows the Littlepage Terrace housing project, a low-income housing tax-credit property allocated through the West Virginia Housing Development Fund, which houses zero Syrian refugees and many regular Americans. Several lines of evidence support this conclusion. First, someone who works next to the project refers to it as Littlepage Terrace. Second, a wider, composite view of the man's video shows clearly identifiable markers of the Littlepage housing complex, including a tell-tale smokestack and buildings that exactly match the structures built at Littlepage. Third, Mark Taylor, the chief executive officer of the Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority, which works with the Littlepage Terrace project, confirmed to us by email that the suspect video was taken at that site during renovations that likely occurred in May 2017. He also confirmed that the community houses no Syrian refugees. Another significant oversight in the tweeted narrative is that the entire state of West Virginia has taken in far fewer than 321 Syrian refugees in total. In 2016, the year the United States took in the largest number of Syrian refugees, West Virginia resettled only five of them. On 1 February 2017, the Trump Administration announced Executive Order 13769, commonly referred to as the "travel ban," which indefinitely suspended the admission of Syrian refugees to the United States. In 2017, West Virginia took in 13 refugees, but these individuals were not necessarily Syrian. It is true that Littlepage was torn down and rebuilt, but that decision had nothing to do with refugee housing. Instead, the renovations aimed to reduce crime and revitalize the area, as reported by West Virginia's WCHS television station in 2016. The Charleston-Kanawha Housing Authority is now in the last phase of revitalizing three housing projects. Similar to Orchard Manor and Washington Manor, Littlepage Terrace will be demolished and rebuilt as two-story townhomes. This housing project was built nearly 80 years ago with no air conditioning and poor visibility. Now it is simply not a secure living space. The goal for these new developments is to reduce crime and revitalize the area. Because the housing complex displayed was not built for Syrian refugees, and because the state has taken virtually no Syrian refugees at all, we rank the claims made in this video as aggressively and demonstrably false.

['income']

False

On 5 March 2019, a conspiracy-minded Twitter account shared a video purporting to be from the site of a construction project funded by West Virginia taxpayer money for the purpose of housing 321 Syrian refugees. The video also claimed this was being done at the expense of regular Americans who, the man claims, were being pushed into substandard housing. He asserted that the area he was standing in will be a sharia zone, and no non-Muslims will be allowed to enter:Several factual problems exist with assertions in this video. Chief among them is the fact that this video shows the Littlepage Terrace housing project, a low-income, housing tax-credit property allocated through the West Virginia Housing Development Fund, which houses zero Syrian refugees and many regular Americans. Several lines of evidence support this conclusion. First, someone who works next to the project refers to it as Littlepage:Another significant oversight in the tweeted narrative is that the entire state of West Virginia has taken in far less than 321 Syrian refugees in total. In 2016, the year the United States took in the largest number of Syrian refugees, West Virginia resettled only five of them in their state. On 1 February 2017, the Trump Administration announced Executive Order 13769, commonly referred to as the travel ban," which indefinitely suspended the admission of Syrian refugees to the United States. In 2017, West Virginia took in 13 refugees, but these individuals were not necessarily Syrian.It is true that Littlepage was torn down and rebuilt, but that decision had nothing to do with refugee housing. Instead, the renovations aimed to reduce crime and revitalize the area, as reported by West Virginias WCHS television station in 2016:

Is Daryl Hannah Pregnant at Age 61?

['Hannah is perhaps best known for her roles in "Blade Runner," "Splash," "Wall Street," and the "Kill Bill" films.']

On Jan. 4, 2021, the Madhouse Magazine website published a story that said film actress Daryl Hannah was pregnant at age 60 with what would be her first child. She married musician Neil Young in 2018. He was 75 years at the time the website published this headline: "Neil Young and Daryl Hannah Expecting Their First Child Together." published married The Madhouse Magazine website had a disclaimer page that described its stories as satire. This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that labeled its stories as being satirical in nature. labeled According to the satirical story, Hannah became pregnant at age 60 and made the announcement on social media: A spokesman confirmed that Neil Young's wife, Daryl Hannah, is pregnant. This will be the couple's first child. Young made the announcement on social media as he posted an image holding a "Prego" tomato sauce jar with the caption, "We are Prego!" Hannah, 60, is in good health and is being monitored. It is quite rare to become pregnant after age 50, but she's one of a growing number of older new mothers in the United States a trend that's bolstered by changing societal norms and new advances in fertility treatments. Several months later, several Twitter users spread the satirical story and described Hannah as becoming pregnant at age 61, not 60, around the time of her birthday, Dec. 3. This tweet was posted days before Hannah's 61st birthday. This reference to John F. Kennedy Jr. was about QAnon conspiracy theory supporters who really did believe he was going to come back from the dead. Of course, that was not the case. (Hannah and Kennedy Jr. previously dated before he died in a plane crash in 1999.) reference to John F. Kennedy Jr. really did believe previously dated A tweet from Dec. 5. The satirical story appeared to catch on in the middle of December. We saw various accounts share the satire story on this day. A snippet from the Madhouse Magazine story was also shared as a screenshot: A section from the satirical story. In the snippet, it said: Neil Young, 75, was giddy with excitement as he gushed at the prospect of a new baby. "I understand we are up there in age, but don't let these old grey temples fool ya now. Just because theres snow on the roof don't mean theres no fire in the basement!" Neil then did a few pelvic thrusts to emphasize his virility. "You better stand back" said Neil to the female reporters, "You might get pregnant standing too close to me!" Giving birth at age 60 may be rare, but just last year a 74 year old woman in India gave birth to twins. "I have the Uterus of a 20 year old and the eggs of a teenager", said Hannah. "There was no IVF or anything like that, me and Neil did it the old fashioned way by humping like jackrabbits." The satirical story spread well beyond its Madhouse Magazine origins, including in a Sept. 13, 2021, article on heightzone.com. The headline read: "Daryl Hannah Is Pregnant at the Age of 60 with Husband Neil Young, Couple Expecting a Baby Boy!" We stumbled upon similar stories on celebsaga.com and mixedarticle.com. article on heightzone.com celebsaga.com mixedarticle.com We also found the purported news reposted a seemingly endless number of times on Facebook: A question with an easy answer: Hannah was not pregnant. This appeared to be a real photograph from 2018. It's possible that the misleading story from heightzone.com prompted a surge in new posts around Dec. 14, 2021. "Wrong" is certainly one way to describe "satire." In sum, the story about Hannah becoming pregnant was labeled as satire but later spread well beyond its origins. For this reason, we have rated this claim as "Originated As Satire." For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why

['share']

False

On Jan. 4, 2021, the Madhouse Magazine website published a story that said film actress Daryl Hannah was pregnant at age 60 with what would be her first child. She married musician Neil Young in 2018. He was 75 years at the time the website published this headline: "Neil Young and Daryl Hannah Expecting Their First Child Together." The Madhouse Magazine website had a disclaimer page that described its stories as satire.This item was not a factual recounting of real-life events. The article originated with a website that labeled its stories as being satirical in nature. This tweet was posted days before Hannah's 61st birthday.This reference to John F. Kennedy Jr. was about QAnon conspiracy theory supporters who really did believe he was going to come back from the dead. Of course, that was not the case. (Hannah and Kennedy Jr. previously dated before he died in a plane crash in 1999.) A tweet from Dec. 5. The satirical story appeared to catch on in the middle of December. We saw various accounts share the satire story on this day. A section from the satirical story.The satirical story spread well beyond its Madhouse Magazine origins, including in a Sept. 13, 2021, article on heightzone.com. The headline read: "Daryl Hannah Is Pregnant at the Age of 60 with Husband Neil Young, Couple Expecting a Baby Boy!" We stumbled upon similar stories on celebsaga.com and mixedarticle.com. A question with an easy answer: Hannah was not pregnant. This appeared to be a real photograph from 2018. It's possible that the misleading story from heightzone.com prompted a surge in new posts around Dec. 14, 2021. "Wrong" is certainly one way to describe "satire."In sum, the story about Hannah becoming pregnant was labeled as satire but later spread well beyond its origins. For this reason, we have rated this claim as "Originated As Satire." For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor.

Were 9 Parents Deported Under Trump Just Reunited with Their Children?

['A powerful photograph was shared in a February 2021 tweet that appeared to announce heartwarming new information about reunited families.']

On Feb. 3, 2021, a tweet by @ialhusseini appeared to share heartwarming news about nine parents who were deported during former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. The tweet claimed the adults had landed back in the U.S. the same day the tweet was posted and had been reunited with their children: tweet However, the photograph used in this tweet was miscaptioned. It's true that nine parents who were deported from the U.S. were later reunited with their children, but that occurrence took place a year before the tweet shown above was posted. Pictured in the Feb. 3, 2021, tweet were David Xol and his son, Byron. The Associated Press had reported their story in a Jan. 23, 2020, article headlined "9 parents separated from families return to children in US," along with the photograph shown in the tweet. The picture was credited to Ringo HW Chiu/AP, and its original caption read: "David Xol-Cholom, of Guatemala, hugs his son Byron at Los Angeles international airport as they reunite after being separated by the Trump administration." reported Both Xol and his son were featured in that AP story: LOS ANGELES (AP) As his long-lost son walked toward him in an airport terminal, a sobbing David Xol stretched out his arms, fell to one knee, and embraced the boy for about three minutes, crying into his shoulder. He had not held the child since May 2018, when border agents pulled then-7-year-old Byron away inside a detention facility. They were separated under President Donald Trumps zero-tolerance policy the father deported to Guatemala, the son placed in a series of government facilities before ending up with a host family in Texas. Xol was one of nine parents who won the exceedingly rare chance to return to the U.S. after being deported under family separation. They arrived Wednesday at Los Angeles International Airport to be reunited with children they hadnt seen in a year and a half or longer under the order of a federal judge who found the U.S. government had unlawfully prevented them from seeking asylum. A video was also included with the AP story showing the moment that Xol and his son embraced for the first time in more than a year and a half: https://youtu.be/r_QFc8bIIww The tweet from @ialhusseini received thousands of retweets and likes, with one viewing replying, "Grateful for the Biden Administration for this beautiful pix." Others thanked both U.S. President Joe Biden and first lady Jill Biden. However, these families were reunited a year before Biden was sworn in as president. After taking office on Jan. 20, 2021, Biden did move forward on plans to reunite children who were deported and separated from their parents under the Trump administration. On Feb. 2, 2021, The Associated Press reported that the wheels for those unifications were in motion: reported Alejandro Mayorkas, who was sworn in as Homeland Security secretary after his nomination was confirmed by the Senate, will lead a task force on family separation, focused largely on reuniting parents and children who remain apart. It is unclear exactly how many, but about 5,500 children have been identified in court documents as having been separated during Trump's presidency, including about 600 whose parents have yet to be found by a court-appointed committee. "We're going to work to undo the moral and national shame of the previous administration," Biden said. The review will address the possibility of legal status in the United States for separated families and providing mental health services. The American Civil Liberties Union, which sued to reunite families, has asked the administration for legal status in the United States for all of the thousands of families that have been separated, as well as financial compensation for those families and attorneys at government expense. In sum, a tweet from Feb. 3, 2021, reported a news story as if it had just taken place. However, although the story was true, it was a report from more than a year earlier. Twitter users shared the tweet and its accompanying picture as if it were new and current, and for this reason we have rated this story as being "Miscaptioned." Featured photograph caption (top): "A Honduran asylum seeker, recently released from federal detention with fellow migrants, holds the hand of her six-year-old daughter at a bus depot on June 11, 2019, in McAllen, Texas."

['share']

False

On Feb. 3, 2021, a tweet by @ialhusseini appeared to share heartwarming news about nine parents who were deported during former U.S. President Donald Trump's administration. The tweet claimed the adults had landed back in the U.S. the same day the tweet was posted and had been reunited with their children:Pictured in the Feb. 3, 2021, tweet were David Xol and his son, Byron. The Associated Press had reported their story in a Jan. 23, 2020, article headlined "9 parents separated from families return to children in US," along with the photograph shown in the tweet. The picture was credited to Ringo HW Chiu/AP, and its original caption read: "David Xol-Cholom, of Guatemala, hugs his son Byron at Los Angeles international airport as they reunite after being separated by the Trump administration."After taking office on Jan. 20, 2021, Biden did move forward on plans to reunite children who were deported and separated from their parents under the Trump administration. On Feb. 2, 2021, The Associated Press reported that the wheels for those unifications were in motion:

Did Pelosi Use $15,000 Worth of Pens to Sign Articles of Impeachment?

['The tradition of using multiple pens to sign important legislation, and then giving those pens to the people involved, has been practiced by politicians for decades. ']

On Jan. 15, 2020, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi signed the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump. The signing ceremony was historic it was only the third time in U.S. history that a president has been impeached. And, according to critics, the event was bit unusual because Pelosi used multiple pens to sign the documents and then handed the writing utensils out as souvenirs. A rumor soon started to circulate on social media positing that the pens Pelosi had used had cost an obscene amount of money. One Twitter user, for instance, claimed that each pen Pelosi used cost $2,025. A message on Facebook held that Pelosi had used a total of $15,000 worth of pens to sign these documents. This number was exaggerated even further by another Facebook user who claimed that each pen cost $15,000, and that the signing ceremony used a total of $450,000 pens: claimed Facebook claimed The most prominent claim, and one that was re-shared verbatim by several different accounts, stated: "Pelosi uses $15,000.00 worth of bullet pens to impeach the president. President Trump uses $1.99 Sharpie to sign $2 billion trade deal with China. That's the difference in a business man and a worthless professional." re-shared verbatim several different While this claim was widespread, it was not supported by evidence. We have encountered no news reports, budget statements, or any other credible information to support the claim that Pelosi used $15,000 worth of pens (or $450,000 worth of pens or $2,025 per pen) to sign the articles of impeachment against Trump. Furthermore, these claims appear to have originated with random social media users who would not have been privy to this sort of information. As these users appear to have been making this information up out of whole cloth, it isn't surprising that the alleged cost of these pens varies from one claim to the next. Drew Hammill, Pelosi's deputy chief of staff, told us that the pens Pelosi used to sign the articles of impeachment cost just under $15 apiece, and that they were the same type of pen used to sign other pieces of legislation. At $15 a piece, that means the total cost for these pens was about $450, well under the $15,000 (or $450,000) amount claimed in those baseless social media posts. Does Trump use a $2 Sharpie to sign legislation? In 2017, the Trump administration placed an order with long-time pen supplier A.T. Cross for 150 "Century II" pens to be used for signing executive orders. A.T. Cross has been supplying pens to the White House since at least the 1970s. While the cost of these pens vary by model, the Century II pens that Trump used at the start of his administration (this model was also used during President Barack Obama's administration) cost a little over $100 a piece at retail. placed an order However, Trump has since switched from the Century II pen to a Sharpie pen. While Sharpie pens can certainly be purchased in the $2 range, Trump doesn't use a Sharpie that you can purchase at a school-supply store. The Commander-in-Chief reportedly uses a custom Sharpie with his signature inscribed down the side. You can see an image of the pen Trump uses to sign executive orders here. custom Sharpie here We reached out to the White House and Newell Brands, the company that manufacturers Sharpies, for more information on Trump's pen. While we can't say exactly how much Trump spends per pen, it seems reasonable to assume that this custom pen is worth more than a $2 generic Sharpie, but well under the $100 pens used at the start of his administration. The "Official Donald J. Trump Fine Point Markers" available via the Trump campaign shop are sold for $15 for a five-pack (which works out to $3 piece). Trump campaign shop Is it unusual to use multiple pens to sign important legislation? In addition to claiming that Pelosi used obscenely expensive pens to sign the articles of impeachment against Trump, many social media users were upset that the House Speaker used multiple writing utensils and then handed them out as souvenirs to mark the occasion. However, this isn't an unusual practice. In fact, on the same day Pelosi handed out the impeachment pens to various lawmakers, Trump performed a similar ritual in the Oval Office after signing a trade deal with China. The photograph above is available via Getty Images with the following caption: "WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 15: U.S. President Donald Trump, accompanied by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (2nd L) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (R), hands out pens to Senators after he and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, signed phase 1 of a trade deal between U.S. and China, in the East Room at the White House, on January 15, 2020 in Washington, DC. Phase 1 is expected to cut tariffs and promote Chinese purchases of U.S. farm, and manufactured goods while addressing disputes over intellectual property. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)" Getty Images Time Magazine explained that this tradition using multiple pens to sign a document and then to give those pens to various people involved dates back to at least the 1930s when Franklin D. Roosevelt was in office: explained The pen used to sign historic legislation itself becomes a historical artifact. The more pens a President uses, the more thank-you gifts he can offer to those who helped create that piece of history. The White House often engraves the pens, which are then given as keepsakes to key proponents or supporters of the newly signed legislation. When Lyndon Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act in 1964, he reportedly used more than 75 pens ... and gave one of the first ones to Martin Luther King Jr. Senators Hubert Humphrey and Everett McKinley Dirksen also received pens for their aid in shuttling the bill through Congress. And in 1996, President Clinton gave the four pens he used to sign the Line-Item Veto bill which allowed Presidents to veto individual sections of legislation rather than the entire thing to those most likely to appreciate the bill's impact: Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. The U.S. Senate also provided souvenir pens in 1999 during the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton. According to a contemporary report in the Akron Beacon, senators used silver Parker Vector pens (worth about $10 a piece) to sign the oath book after they were sworn in and were allowed to keep the pens as a memento: Unfortunately, the pens used during Clinton's trial contained a typo (the term "United States Senator" on the pen was misspelled "Untied States Senator") and had to be replaced. replaced Did Pelosi Use $15,000 Worth of Pens to Sign the Articles of Impeachment? In summary, no evidence exists to support the claim that Pelosi used $15,000 worth of pens to sign the articles of impeachment. This claim originated with random social media accounts and was not supported with documentation. Furthermore, Pelosi's chief of staff refuted the claim, saying the pens cost just under $15 a piece. While some may find it objectionable to hand out souvenir pens after signing such a grave document, it isn't unusual. The tradition of using multiple pens to sign important documents, and then giving those pens away to the people involved, can be traced back decades. Klein, Betsy. "'Trump Sticks With Tradition for Presidential Pen Choice." CNN 27 January 2017. Hanbury, Mary. "'Make it Look Rich': Trump Told Sharpie to Create a Custom Pen For Him to Sign Important Documents." Business Insider 16 November 2018. O'Rourke, Ciara. "No, Nancy Pelosis Impeachment Pens Didnt Cost $2,025 Each." Politifact. 17 January 2020. Akron Beacon. "Pens Ink Spot in History." 8 January 1999. Suddath, Claire. "Why Did Obama Use So Many Pens to Sign the Health Care Bill?" Time Magazine. 24 March 2010. Correction [18 January 2020]: The markers available via the Trump campaign store are sold in packs of 5, not individually as originally stated.

['budget']

False

A rumor soon started to circulate on social media positing that the pens Pelosi had used had cost an obscene amount of money. One Twitter user, for instance, claimed that each pen Pelosi used cost $2,025. A message on Facebook held that Pelosi had used a total of $15,000 worth of pens to sign these documents. This number was exaggerated even further by another Facebook user who claimed that each pen cost $15,000, and that the signing ceremony used a total of $450,000 pens:The most prominent claim, and one that was re-shared verbatim by several different accounts, stated: "Pelosi uses $15,000.00 worth of bullet pens to impeach the president. President Trump uses $1.99 Sharpie to sign $2 billion trade deal with China. That's the difference in a business man and a worthless professional." In 2017, the Trump administration placed an order with long-time pen supplier A.T. Cross for 150 "Century II" pens to be used for signing executive orders. A.T. Cross has been supplying pens to the White House since at least the 1970s. While the cost of these pens vary by model, the Century II pens that Trump used at the start of his administration (this model was also used during President Barack Obama's administration) cost a little over $100 a piece at retail. However, Trump has since switched from the Century II pen to a Sharpie pen. While Sharpie pens can certainly be purchased in the $2 range, Trump doesn't use a Sharpie that you can purchase at a school-supply store. The Commander-in-Chief reportedly uses a custom Sharpie with his signature inscribed down the side. You can see an image of the pen Trump uses to sign executive orders here.We reached out to the White House and Newell Brands, the company that manufacturers Sharpies, for more information on Trump's pen. While we can't say exactly how much Trump spends per pen, it seems reasonable to assume that this custom pen is worth more than a $2 generic Sharpie, but well under the $100 pens used at the start of his administration. The "Official Donald J. Trump Fine Point Markers" available via the Trump campaign shop are sold for $15 for a five-pack (which works out to $3 piece). The photograph above is available via Getty Images with the following caption: "WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 15: U.S. President Donald Trump, accompanied by U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer (2nd L) and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin (R), hands out pens to Senators after he and Chinese Vice Premier Liu He, signed phase 1 of a trade deal between U.S. and China, in the East Room at the White House, on January 15, 2020 in Washington, DC. Phase 1 is expected to cut tariffs and promote Chinese purchases of U.S. farm, and manufactured goods while addressing disputes over intellectual property. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)"Time Magazine explained that this tradition using multiple pens to sign a document and then to give those pens to various people involved dates back to at least the 1930s when Franklin D. Roosevelt was in office:Unfortunately, the pens used during Clinton's trial contained a typo (the term "United States Senator" on the pen was misspelled "Untied States Senator") and had to be replaced.

Did a Florida Manatee Break Free from Bicycle Tire Entanglement?

['Sea cows are nicknamed for their rotund appearance and affinity for water grass. ']

A Florida manatee spotted ensnared in a bicycle tire in October 2019 was seen again more than a year later, this time without the potentially deadly entrapment wrapped around its body. A Facebook post shared on Dec. 5, 2020, by the Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC) and Wildlife Research Institute described the return of the now-free manatee as it made its way back to Blue Spring State Park, a spring-fed sanctuary outside of Orlando known for its annual return of hundreds of manatees every winter. known Aptly named Schwinn by researchers and Wheelie by concerned citizens, the manatee was reported in October 2019 in Fernandina Beach before it migrated some 150 miles to Blue Spring for the winter. During its stay, wildlife officials made several attempts to rescue the manatee but were unable to do so safely. Due to the difficulties involved in making a safe rescue among hundreds of other manatees staying warm in the spring, Schwinn became wary and evaded rescue boats, research canoes, or approaching in-water biologists, making it impossible to safely rescue the tire-encircled manatee, wrote the affiliated nonprofit organization, Save the Manatee, in a news release. news release But a cold front in late 2020 brought the manatees back to the sanctuary, where the previously entangled manatee was recognized on a live webcam maintained by the Save the Manatee Club. This time around, conservationists noted that the marine mammal returned a little lighter than last year. live webcam Experts cannot determine exactly how the manatee escaped the encircling tire. Ironically, Schwinn the manatee was superficially struck by a boats propeller in February, which cut through a significant portion of the tire, added the FWC. The cut from the propeller likely weakened the tire, allowing the manatee to swim free sometime later. Nicknamed sea cows for their similarities to livestock, manatees are fully aquatic marine mammals that survive nearly entirely on water grass. The Florida manatee, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee, is considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act and designated as below their optimum sustainable population level or depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These slow-moving mammals are largely threatened by human interference by way of boat collisions, entanglement in fishing gear and other trash, and a loss of habitat. considered Schwinn the manatee bears obvious scars from the bicycle tire entanglement. Each year, many manatees are killed or injured by debris discarded into the waterways. Save the Manatee Save the Manatee

['loss']

True

A Facebook post shared on Dec. 5, 2020, by the Florida Wildlife Commission (FWC) and Wildlife Research Institute described the return of the now-free manatee as it made its way back to Blue Spring State Park, a spring-fed sanctuary outside of Orlando known for its annual return of hundreds of manatees every winter.Due to the difficulties involved in making a safe rescue among hundreds of other manatees staying warm in the spring, Schwinn became wary and evaded rescue boats, research canoes, or approaching in-water biologists, making it impossible to safely rescue the tire-encircled manatee, wrote the affiliated nonprofit organization, Save the Manatee, in a news release.But a cold front in late 2020 brought the manatees back to the sanctuary, where the previously entangled manatee was recognized on a live webcam maintained by the Save the Manatee Club. This time around, conservationists noted that the marine mammal returned a little lighter than last year. Nicknamed sea cows for their similarities to livestock, manatees are fully aquatic marine mammals that survive nearly entirely on water grass. The Florida manatee, a subspecies of the West Indian manatee, is considered threatened under the Endangered Species Act and designated as below their optimum sustainable population level or depleted under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. These slow-moving mammals are largely threatened by human interference by way of boat collisions, entanglement in fishing gear and other trash, and a loss of habitat. Schwinn the manatee bears obvious scars from the bicycle tire entanglement. Each year, many manatees are killed or injured by debris discarded into the waterways. Save the Manatee

Ronald Reagan Beat Jimmy Carter in a Landslide Despite Trailing 6% in Polls?

['The claim that Reagan won the 1980 presidential election in a landslide despite trailing well behind Carter in late public opinion polls is cited as a reason to get out and vote for Donald Trump.']

Two and a half weeks before the 2016 presidential election, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump trailed behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by an average of 6% in national polls, a statistic that buoyed Clinton supporters yet failed to rattle diehard supporters of Trump, who had managed, as The Guardian put it, to "confound expectations" all year. As the smoke clears from weeks of political bombardment, White House watchers are convinced the only questions now are how big Hillary Clinton's win will be and whether the Democrats can take Congress, too. Those Republicans still loyal to Trump cling to the hope that all the polls are wrong and that in barely two weeks' time, angry voters will again stun the world. Over and over, Donald Trump is saying one word: Brexit. "We will win," he told a rally in Pennsylvania on Friday. "We will shock the world. This is going to be Brexit-plus." Hubris aside, some of his supporters remained worried about voter defections in the wake of the Trump "groping" scandal, prompting calls for an eleventh-hour get-out-the-vote drive, not to mention homebrew efforts to rally people to the polls, like the image macro below: groping drive. The Internet meme was accurate insofar as public opinion polls taken in October 1980 showed Democrat Jimmy Carter holding as much as an eight-point lead over Republican Ronald Reagan (a Gallup poll two weeks before the election had Carter at 47% and Reagan at 39%), yet Reagan won a landslide victory in the general election, beating Carter 489 to 49 in electoral votes and by almost 10% in the popular vote. (It should be noted that 6.6% of the popular vote also went to a third-party candidate, John Anderson.) To conclude from that single example that polls simply ought not to be believed is a stretch, however. The 1980 upset was anomalous, the polling organization Gallup says, and based on factors unique to that year's campaign. Reagan's late-breaking surge that year is generally attributed to the only presidential debate between Carter and Reagan, held one week before the election on Oct. 28, which seemed to move voter preferences in Reagan's direction, as well as the ongoing Iran hostage crisis, which reached its one-year anniversary on Election Day. After trailing Carter by 8 points among registered voters (and by 3 points among likely voters) right before their debate, Reagan moved into a 3-point lead among likely voters immediately afterward, and he won the Nov. 4 election by 10 points. By contrast, in 2016, the two major party candidates had already faced off in three head-to-head debates, all held well before Election Day, that resulted in little or no improvement in Trump's underdog position in the polls. Among the many issues and challenges facing America, none looms in the forefront the way the Iranian hostage crisis (and the Iranian Revolution in general) did throughout the final year of Jimmy Carter's presidency. As Jonathan Chait noted back in 2012 when Republican challenger Mitt Romney found himself in a similar underdog position against incumbent president Barack Obama in that year's campaign home stretch: "In 1980, the economy cratered (nothing remotely comparable has occurred this year), and then the Iranian hostage crisis, after an initial rally-around-the-flag blip, steadily corroded Carter's popularity." No equivalent of those factors can be seen yet today, and pinning your hopes on a scenario where your campaign suddenly picks up ten points in the final month seems to be either an act of self-delusion or a ploy to keep anxious conservatives at bay. John Sides similarly observed when commenting on the 2012 presidential race that the notion President Carter held a polling lead over Ronald Reagan in 1980 right up until the very end of the campaign is something of a misconception: "1980 is a poor comparison with 2012 for many reasons. One is simply that the economy is not as bad in 2012 as it was in 1980. But there is another apparent misconception in the Romney campaign, which Nate Silver rightly picked up on: Carter didn't lead Reagan for much of the campaign. The [poll tracking] plot shows what Chait describes, which is the ebbing of Carter's poll standing throughout 1980. Indeed, Reagan didn't need his convention bump—which he certainly got—to put him in the lead. The Democratic convention helped erode Reagan's lead, but it never closed it altogether. At the end of the campaign, Reagan did surge, but this only increased his lead. His surge appears to have been brought on first by the debate, and then perhaps by several other events in the final week of the campaign: "On Friday of that week, the final economic indicator of the campaign showed inflation still seriously on the rise. And on Sunday morning, November 1, the Iranian parliament announced their conditions for freeing the American hostages. Jimmy Carter immediately abandoned campaigning and appeared on national television in the early evening to repeat much of what the public had been hearing all day. It was a week, in effect, with much that could affect the choices made by voters." Carter's pollster, Patrick Caddell, believed that Iran's rebuff doomed Carter, saying, "It was all related to the hostages and events overseas." Harry Enten of the statistical analysis website FiveThirtyEight confirmed that in ordinary circumstances, October public opinion polls are usually reliable and highly predictive of final election results: "In most years, the early-October polls [since 1952] were pretty close to the mark, with a correlation of +0.96 between the polls and the final result. Ten of the 16 elections featured errors of 3 percentage points or less, and in all but three campaigns, the polls were within 5 percentage points of the final outcome. Even in 2012, when Mitt Romney closed his deficit against President Obama after the first debate, the polls at this point still showed Obama leading. At this point in the election cycle, the average error of polls for all elections is just 3.3 percentage points (much lower than the 4.7-point error we found for just after the conventions), and every candidate who's been ahead in the popular vote in mid-October went on to win the election." Given the rarity of last-minute upsets, did Enten think Donald Trump still had a chance to stage a comeback and win the general election despite lagging 6% in the polls? "It's possible," he wrote. "But it would be basically unprecedented." Is that an excuse for anyone, regardless of party affiliation, not to turn out to vote? No, it is not.

['economy']

NEI

Two-and-a-half weeks before the 2016 presidential election, GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump trailed behind Democrat Hillary Clinton by an average of 6% in national polls, a statistic that buoyed Clinton supporters, yet failed to rattle diehard supporters of Trump, who had managed, as The Guardian put it, to "confound expectations" all year:Those Republicans still loyal to Trump cling to the hope that all the polls are wrong that in barely two weeks time, angry voters will again stun the world. Over and over, Donald Trump is saying one word: Brexit.Hubris aside, some of his supporters remained worried about voter defections in the wake of the Trump "groping" scandal, prompting calls for an eleventh-hour get-out-the vote drive, not to mention homebrew efforts to rally people to the polls like the image macro below:The Internet meme was accurate insofar as public opinion polls taken in October 1980 showed Democrat Jimmy Carter holding as much as an eight-point lead over Republican Ronald Reagan (a Gallup poll two weeks before the election had Carter at 47% and Reagan at 39%), yet Reagan won a landslide victory in the general election, beating Carter 489 to 49 in electoral votes and by almost 10% in the popular vote. (It should be noted that 6.6% of the popular vote also went to a third-party candidate, John Anderson.)To conclude from that single example that polls simply ought not to be believed is a stretch, however. The 1980 upset was anomalous, the polling organization Gallup says, and based on factors unique to that year's campaign:John Sides similarly observed when commenting on the 2012 presidential race that the notion President Carter held a polling lead over Ronald Reagan in 1980 right up until the very end of the campaign is something of a misconception: Harry Enten of the statistical analysis web site FiveThirtyEight confirmed that in ordinary circumstances, October public opinion polls are usually reliable and highly predictive of final election results:Given the rarity of last-minute upsets, did Enten think Donald Trump still had a chance to stage a comeback and win the general election despite lagging 6% in the polls?

Did Russia Post Navalny's Death Notice Just 2 Minutes After Official Time of Death?

['"The causes of death are being established," the official notice stated.']

On Feb. 16, 2024, the Russian prison service announced the death of Alexei Navalny, President Vladimir Putin's most outspoken and formidable opponent. The former lawyer was 47 years old and was serving a 19-year prison sentence on charges of extremism in an isolated penal colony above the Arctic Circle. The notice, released by the prison service of the Yamalo-Nenets region and translated from Russian by Reuters, read as follows: "On Feb. 16, 2024, in penal colony number 3, convict Alexei Navalny felt unwell after a walk, almost immediately losing consciousness. The medical staff of the institution arrived immediately, and an ambulance team was called. All necessary resuscitation measures were carried out, which did not yield positive results. Doctors of the ambulance stated the death of the convict. The causes of death are being established." The notice indicated it was last updated at 2:19 p.m. on Feb. 16. According to a Feb. 17 tweet by Navalny's spokesperson, Kira Yarmysh, he was "murdered," and the official time of his death was 2:17 p.m. on Feb. 16, "according to the official message to Alexey's mother." An employee of the colony stated that Navalny's body is now in Salekhard, having been picked up by investigators from the IC. Ivan Zhdanov, the director of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation, tweeted on Feb. 17 that when Navalny's lawyer and mother arrived at the colony, they were told that the cause of Navalny's death was "sudden death syndrome." On Feb. 19, Navalny's anti-corruption foundation posted an update reaffirming that his official time of death was 2:17. The Kremlin has not been transparent in releasing more specific details regarding the exact cause of Navalny's death; therefore, information surrounding the exact cause and time of his death cannot be absolutely confirmed without an independent investigation. Because of this, we rate this claim as "Unproven." If more information surrounding the details of his death is confirmed, this story will be updated accordingly. Many world leaders, including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and U.S. President Joe Biden, publicly pointed to Putin as being behind Navalny's death. Navalny's wife, Yulia Navalnaya, spoke at the Munich Security Conference within hours of the announcement of her husband's death. In her speech, she stated that she did not know whether to believe the report of his death because "we cannot trust Putin and the Putin government. They always lie." Just one day before the announcement of his death, on Feb. 15, Navalny was seen in a video-link court hearing in which he joked with the judge about sending him money because he was running out of funds due to the judge's decisions.

['funds']

NEI

On Feb. 16, 2024, the death of Russian President Vladimir Putin's most outspoken and formidable opponent, Alexei Navalny, was announced by the Russian prison service.The former lawyer was 47, and he was serving a 19-year prison sentence on charges of extremism in an isolated penal colony above the Arctic Circle.The notice, released by the prison service of the Yamalo-Nenets region andtranslated from Russian by Reuters, read as follows: (@Kira_Yarmysh) February 17, 2024Ivan Zhdanov,the director of Navalny's Anti-Corruption Foundation, tweeted on Feb. 17 that when Navalny's lawyer and mother arrived at the colony, they were told that the cause of Navalny's death was "sudden death syndrome."On Feb. 19, Navalny's anti-corruption foundation posted an updatein which they reaffirm that his official time of death was 2:17, pictured below:Many world leaders including Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and U.S. President Joe Biden publicly pointed to Putin as being behind Navalny's death. Navalny's wife, Yulia Navalnaya, spoke at the Munich Security Conference within hours of the announcement of her husband's death. In her speech, she stated that she did not know whether to believe the report of his death because"we cannot trust Putin and the Putin government. They always lie."Just one day beforethe announcement of his death, on Feb. 15, Navalny was seen in a video-link court hearing in which he joked with the judge about sending him money because he was running out of funds due to the judge's decisions.

If Texas were a country our economy would rank # 10...in the WORLD.

[]

CORRECTION, 2:50 p.m., Sept. 15, 2016:After this fact check posted, readers pointed out we'd presented Texas and California GDP figures in billions of dollars when relevant figures actually reflected productivity in the trillions of dollars. We made appropriate changes. Our rating of the claim didn't change. In a tweet adorned with images of a rocket, a wind turbine, a steer, a factory and a microscope, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott declared: If Texas were a country, it would have the 10th highest GDP in the world. If so, thats gained ground.When we looked into a 2012 claimcomparing productivity in Texas versus the nations of the world, Texas ranked 14th internationally. So, we decided to put Abbotts statement to the Texas Truth-O-Meter. The fine print in Abbotts tweet states that it's based on information from Glenn Hegar, the Texas state comptroller, and from the International Monetary Fund and Bureau of Economic Analysis. When we asked, Lauren Willis of the comptrollers office emailed usits chartindicating that in 2015, Texas had a gross domestic product of $1.59 trillion -- placing it 10th among countries behind the U.S. ($17.95 trillion) and eight countries including Brazil ($1.77 trillion). The chart shows Texas ahead of No. 11 Canada ($1.55 trillion) as well as Korea, Russia, Australia, Spain, Mexico and four other countries. GDP, the most-used measure of national economic output, isdefinedas the market value of goods and services produced by labor and property in country. SOURCE:Email, Lauren Willis, director of communications, Office of Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Sept. 6, 2016 For our part, we found 2015GDP figures posted in April 2016by the International Monetary Fund matching the GDP figures in the comptrollers chart. Willis also pointed out aWorld Bank breakoutof GDPs by nation for 2015; the presented figures didnt perfectly align with the comptrollers chart, we found, though the ranking of the top 10 countries did. Willis also sent a web link to the bureaus U.S. and state-by-state GDP figures for 2015 and previous years. From the BEA, we downloaded figures indicating that in 2015, Texas had the GDP of $1.59 trillion that Abbott relied on. Then again, more populous California had a GDP of $2.46 trillion, which would have placed the Golden State No. 6 in the world if it were a nation, nudging Texas to No. 11.We recently found toothat California in 2015 had greater per-capita productivity than Texas. SOURCE:Website,Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product, Interactive TablesBureau of Economic Analysis, last updated June 14, 2016 (GDP figures downloaded Sept. 6, 2016) Our ruling Abbott said that if Texas were a country, its economy would rank 10th in the world. Thats so, figures show, if you leave out a bigger state, California. Considering California, in fairness, Texas would rank 11th in the world. 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. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cdc4ac03-aab9-4c82-b255-b39c9f4656db

['Corrections and Updates', 'Economy', 'States', 'Texas']

True

If so, thats gained ground.When we looked into a 2012 claimcomparing productivity in Texas versus the nations of the world, Texas ranked 14th internationally.When we asked, Lauren Willis of the comptrollers office emailed usits chartindicating that in 2015, Texas had a gross domestic product of $1.59 trillion -- placing it 10th among countries behind the U.S. ($17.95 trillion) and eight countries including Brazil ($1.77 trillion). The chart shows Texas ahead of No. 11 Canada ($1.55 trillion) as well as Korea, Russia, Australia, Spain, Mexico and four other countries.GDP, the most-used measure of national economic output, isdefinedas the market value of goods and services produced by labor and property in country.For our part, we found 2015GDP figures posted in April 2016by the International Monetary Fund matching the GDP figures in the comptrollers chart. Willis also pointed out aWorld Bank breakoutof GDPs by nation for 2015; the presented figures didnt perfectly align with the comptrollers chart, we found, though the ranking of the top 10 countries did.Willis also sent a web link to the bureaus U.S. and state-by-state GDP figures for 2015 and previous years. From the BEA, we downloaded figures indicating that in 2015, Texas had the GDP of $1.59 trillion that Abbott relied on. Then again, more populous California had a GDP of $2.46 trillion, which would have placed the Golden State No. 6 in the world if it were a nation, nudging Texas to No. 11.We recently found toothat California in 2015 had greater per-capita productivity than Texas.SOURCE:Website,Regional Economic Accounts, Gross Domestic Product, Interactive TablesBureau of Economic Analysis, last updated June 14, 2016 (GDP figures downloaded Sept. 6, 2016)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.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cdc4ac03-aab9-4c82-b255-b39c9f4656db

Florida has the third most-regressive tax structure.

[]

When it comes to taxes, Democratic candidate for governor Nan Rich wants to make things more fair for the little guy in Florida. Rich, a former state senator from Weston, faced a question about whether Floridas tax system should be changed during a Florida Press Association event July 11 at the swanky Biltmore Hotel in Coral Gables. I think it's a regressive tax base, and when you look at some of the studies saying its the third most-regressive tax base -- I don't want you to quote me on that because PolitiFact may get me, I'm not sure if its (No.) three -- but I think there are things we need to do to make a more equitable and fair tax structure. At PolitiFact Florida, our ears perk up when we hear rankings that put Florida near the top or bottom. As for her request for us not to PolitiFact her, well, we couldnt help but take that as a friendly challenge. Studies about regressive taxes Rich told PolitiFact Florida in an interview, dont hold me to third regressive.... I did not say third definitively... We are one of the most regressive. Rich cited a 2013reportby The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which partners withCitizens for Tax Justice, a group that advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families. The report concluded that all states have regressive tax systems. It means that state taxes come more from the poor and middle class than from the rich. Virtually every states tax system is fundamentally unfair, taking a much greater share of income from middle- and low-income families than from wealthy families, the report says. The absence of a graduated personal income tax and the over reliance on consumption taxes exacerbate this problem in many states. The report measures property, sales and excise taxes on gasoline and cigarettes paid by different income groups in each state in 2013 and concludes Florida isNo. 2 of the terrible 10-- the second most-regressive tax system in the country. (No. 1 wasWashington state.) The No. 1 and No. 2 predictor of a very unfair tax system is not having a personal income tax of any kind and an above-average sales tax, and Florida has both of those things, said Matt Gardner, the institutes executive director. The report found that for non-elderly taxpayers, the bottom 20 percent pay 13.2 percent of their income toward state and local taxes. Meanwhile, the top 1 percent of earners only pay about 2.3 percent of their income toward state and local taxes. The report gives a nod to one progressive feature of Floridas taxes: We dont have sales taxes on groceries. We were unable to find any other entity that included Florida in a state-by-state comparison of regressivity and taxes. The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that analyzes tax policy, wrote areportcriticizing the institutes study, but their points were not specifically about the states rankings. Instead, they criticized the report for promoting income taxes. The foundation does its own ranking of states in terms ofbusiness climate-- Florida placed fifth. We interviewed a few experts on taxes, and they were not surprised by Floridas ranking when it comes to regressive taxes. Not that many states dont have an income tax, so that puts us in a small group that looks more regressive, said University of Central Florida economist Sean Snaith. However, he said, regressive and burdensome are separate issues. The tax burden in Florida is still very low, despite being regressive. Aaron Twait, research director at the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, said there are only two taxes that are progressive: the income tax and the estate tax. States that dont have the income tax -- they just dont have that lever to pull, he said. Sales taxes, property taxes, and excise taxes run from moderately regressive to really regressive. Our ruling Rich said that there is evidence that Florida has the third most-regressive tax base, though she acknowledged when she spoke she wasnt certain if she had the number right. She was close: A study placed Florida No. 2 in terms of its regressive tax base. Florida has a regressive tax base because we lack a state income tax. Though the Tax Foundation criticized the report, it didnt dispute the states rankings, and other experts we interviewed also had no qualms about Floridas placement. Richs number of third place was just a smidgen low, so we rate this claim Mostly True.

['Poverty', 'Taxes', 'Florida']

True

Rich cited a 2013reportby The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which partners withCitizens for Tax Justice, a group that advocates for fair taxation of middle- and low-income families.The report measures property, sales and excise taxes on gasoline and cigarettes paid by different income groups in each state in 2013 and concludes Florida isNo. 2 of the terrible 10-- the second most-regressive tax system in the country. (No. 1 wasWashington state.)The Tax Foundation, a business-backed group that analyzes tax policy, wrote areportcriticizing the institutes study, but their points were not specifically about the states rankings. Instead, they criticized the report for promoting income taxes.The foundation does its own ranking of states in terms ofbusiness climate-- Florida placed fifth.

Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928.

[]

Barack Obama and U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, have recently expressed similar concerns about the future of working-class Americans, although they differ in their proposed solutions. In his January 2015 State of the Union address, the Democratic president stated his desire to work with Congress to offer free community college to students while creating additional education, child care, and retirement savings programs to support the middle class. He proposed that funding would come from a $320 billion tax increase on the nation's highest earners and financial institutions, including investment banks. After Obama's speech, Cruz told Fox News he was disappointed with Obama's goals to increase government spending and taxes, which he argued would harm hardworking Americans. Cruz claimed that the country's rich and powerful have become complacent during Obama's presidency. "Today, the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than in any year since 1928," Cruz said. Was Cruz correct? He cites West Coast economist Emmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley economics professor who studies wealth and income inequality. Cruz's spokesman, Phil Novack, indicated that Cruz does not agree with Obama, who stated in his speech that he wants to reduce the top 1 percent's after-tax income. Novack explained that Cruz believes the only way to jumpstart the economy is by championing pro-growth policies like energy development and a flatter, simpler tax structure. Cruz's comparison to 1928 comes from a report by the Pew Research Center, which cites research by Saez. Saez helps steer the World Top Incomes Database, sponsored by the Paris School of Economics, a research center and consortium of French universities offering graduate degrees and post-graduate fellowships in economics. The database, established in 2011, shows the distribution of top incomes for more than 20 countries using data from millions of tax returns collected over about 100 years. Saez stated that he and economists, including Thomas Piketty, built the database from sources such as public-use files of individual tax returns. The public-use micro-files are anonymized to preserve each taxpayer's confidentiality, Saez noted. To examine changes over time ourselves, we created a chart from the database. The resulting data, covering 1913, the earliest verifiable year, to 2012, shows that 1928 and 2012 were the top two years in which the top 1 percent of the richest Americans earned the greatest share of the nation's income, which the government categorizes into 15 categories, including wages, salaries, self-employment income, and income from dividends and interest. In 1928, the top 1 percent of earners, then comprising about 1.2 million residents, collectively held 19.6 percent of the nation's income. In 2008, the year Obama was elected president, the top 1 percent possessed nearly 18 percent. The 1 percent collectively saw their share of the nation's income increase by nearly 5 percent during the first three years of Obama's presidency. In his fourth year, 2012, the 1 percent (nearly 314 million residents) controlled 19.34 percent. According to the database, that was the greatest share these wealthiest Americans had held since 1928. (No. 3 goes to 1927, when the top 1 percent had 18.7 percent of U.S. income.) Top 15 years the richest American taxpayers had the greatest share of U.S. income from 1913 through 2012: Year | Top 1% income share 1928 | 19.6 2012 | 19.34 1927 | 18.68 1916 | 18.57 1929 | 18.42 2007 | 18.33 1914 | 18.16 2006 | 18.06 1926 | 18.01 1913 | 17.96 2008 | 17.89 2005 | 17.68 1936 | 17.64 1917 | 17.6 1925 | 17.6 Source: The World Top Incomes Database, 2011 (accessed Jan. 30, 2015) Saez informed us via email that Obama and Congress (which shifted to Republican control during his tenure) did little to address wealth inequality up until 2012, as the country recovered from the Great Recession, which officially lasted from December 2007 to June 2009. In a Sept. 3, 2013, report, Saez wrote that in 2012, average real incomes per family in the top 1 percent of earners nationally increased by 19.6 percent, while average incomes among the rest of the population grew by only 1 percent. The report suggested that the entire surge in top 1 percent incomes in 2012 could be attributed to income re-timing—when individuals delay making payments to report a higher income and take advantage of lower tax rates. Saez also indicated that he expects the top 1 percent's income share for 2014 to be slightly lower than in 2012 due to tax increases approved by Congress and Obama in 2013, which raised the nation's marginal income tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 annually, starting in 2013. This deal, which also reduced tax deductions for high-earning businesses and individuals, helped the government avoid the fiscal cliff, a term describing the impending impact of tax cuts initiated by President George W. Bush expiring at the end of 2012, coinciding with mandated spending reductions. Questions about income-inequality research have arisen regarding the World Top Incomes Database and Saez's work, which have become popular sources for politicians discussing income and wealth inequality. Some experts, however, have raised doubts about the Piketty-Saez inequality measurements. Gary Burtless, an economist with the Brookings Institution, noted that the Saez-Piketty data may understate income growth for the bottom 99 percent. He explained that Piketty and Saez limit their focus to pre-tax private income, including wages, self-employment earnings, dividends, interest, rental payments, and, in some cases, capital gains. As a result, Burtless argued, the database does not account for other income sources such as Social Security, unemployment benefits, food stamps, government reimbursement of medical bills, and untaxed fringe benefits like employer contributions to health and retirement plans. If these income items are included, Burtless stated, the bottom 99 percent of income recipients has experienced much faster income growth than what is shown by Piketty and Saez. He suggested that the best statistics on U.S. income inequality come from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO), which constructs three measures of income: gross market income, pre-tax income (gross market income plus cash and non-cash government transfers), and after-tax income (pre-tax income minus federal income, payroll, and excise taxes). CBO data indicates that from 2009 to 2010, the top 1 percent's share of income increased from 13.3 percent to 14.9 percent. (To clarify, Piketty and Saez report that their research shows the top 1 percent's share of income escalating from 16.68 percent to 17.45 percent.) Next, we spoke with Robert Litan, another economist with the Brookings Institution, about why income inequality escalated so quickly during Obama's first term. Litan noted that reasons for the rising share of the top 1 percent's income include increasing CEO pay relative to workers, the extraordinary success of tech entrepreneurs, facilitated by the Internet and globalization, and the achievements of financiers, particularly hedge fund managers. A June 12, 2014 article by the liberal Economic Policy Institute also highlights the disparity in earnings and compensation between CEOs and typical workers. Burtless and Litan further explained that Congress and Obama could not have significantly influenced the percentage increase of the top 1 percent's income based on Piketty-Saez measurements. They emphasized that Congress and the president have a more direct impact on after-tax income than on pre-tax income because their decisions directly affect the tax burdens and government transfer payments of families across different income levels. Our ruling: Cruz stated, "Today the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928." Cruz accurately summarized calculations of income by respected researchers, although this statement does not acknowledge that there are some income streams not included in the cited calculations that would tend to benefit those of us in the bottom 99 percent, relatively speaking. Additionally, tax changes that took effect in 2013 may slightly reduce the proportion of the nation's income held by the top 1 percent. Mark this statement as Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE: The statement is accurate but requires clarification or additional information.

['Income', 'Texas']

True

In hisJanuary 2015 State of the Union address, the Democratic president said he wants towork with Congress to offer free community college to students while creating other education, child care and retirement savings programs to help the middle class. Funding, hes proposed, would come from a $320 billion tax increase on the nations highest earners and financial institutions including investment banks.By email, Cruz spokesman Phil Novack indicated Cruz does not agree with Obama, who said in his speech he wants to reduce the top 1 percents after-tax income. Novack said Cruz, rather than increase taxes on the wealthy, believes the only way to jumpstart the economyis by championing pro-growth policies like energy development and aflatter, simpler tax structure.And, Novack said, Cruz drew his comparison to 1928 froma reportby the Pew Research Center citing research byEmmanuel Saez, a University of California, Berkeley economics professor who studies wealth and income inequality.Saez helps steer theWorld Top Incomes Database, sponsored by the Paris School of Economics, a research center and conglomerate of French universities offering graduate degrees and post-graduate fellowships in economics.The database, in place since 2011, shows the distribution of top incomes for more than 20 countries using data from millions of tax returns collected over about 100 years. By email, Saez said he and economists includingThomas Pikettybuilt the database from sources including public-use files of individual tax returns. The public-use micro-files are blurred to preserve each payers confidentiality, Saez said.To check on changes over time for ourselves, we built a chart fromthe database.The resulting data, covering 1913, the earliest checkable year, to 2012, shows 1928 and 2012 to be the top two years where the top 1 percent of the richest Americans (the richest of the rich)earned the greatest share of the nations income, whichthe government breaks downinto 15 categories including wages, salaries and self-employment income plus income from dividends and interest.Source:The World Top Incomes Database, 2011 (accessed Jan. 30, 2015)In aSept. 3, 2013, report, Saez wrote that in 2012, average real incomes per familyin the top 1 percent of earners nationally increased by 19.6 percent, while average incomes among the rest of us grew1 percent. The report said the entire surge in top 1 percent incomes in 2012 could be a result of income re-timing -- when people hold off on making payments so they can report a higher income to take advantage of lower tax rates.By email, Saez said he expects the top 1 percents income share for 2014 to prove slightly lower than in 2012 as a result of tax increasesapproved by Congress and Obama in 2013raising the nations marginal income-tax rate from 35 to 39.6 percent for married couples earning more than $450,000 annually, starting in 2013. That deal, which also whittled tax deductions for high-earning businesses and individuals, helped the government avoidthe fiscal cliff, a term describing the looming impact of tax cuts initiated by President George W. Bush expiring at the end of 2012 at the same time congressionally mandated spending reductions were due to kick in.The World Top Incomes Database and Saezs work have become popular sources forpoliticiansto cite when discussing income and wealth inequality. Still, some experts have raised doubts about what goes into the Piketty-Saez inequality measurements.Burtless suggested the best statistics on U.S. income inequality come from the nonpartisanCongressional Budget Office. That's because CBO constructs 3 measures of income -- gross market income, pretax income (gross market income plus cash and no cash government transfers), and after-tax income (pre-tax income minus federal income, payroll, and excise taxes), Burtless said in his email. CBO data indicates that from 2009 to 2010, the top 1 percents share of income increased from 13.3 percent to 14.9 percent. (To refresh, Piketty and Saez say their research shows the top 1 percents share of income escalating from 16.68 percent to 17.45 percent.)Next, we talked to Robert Litan, another economist with the Brookings Institution, about why income inequality escalated so quickly in Obamas first term. By email, Litan said reasons for the rising share of the top 1 percents income include rising CEO pay relative to workers, extraordinary success of tech entrepreneurs in particular, made possible by Internet + globalization, and successful financiers, especially hedge fund managers. AJune 12, 2014 articleby the liberal Economic Policy Institute also highlights inequality in earnings and compensation between CEOs and typical workers.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

I delivered to you a budget that ... cuts taxes by $2 billion.

[]

Gov. Rick Scott asked Florida legislators to pass his proposed budget during his first State of the State speech on March 8, 2011. It's a budget that cuts spending to balance the budget as required by the state Constitution. And,it cuts taxes. I delivered to you a budget that ... cuts taxes by $2 billion, Scott told legislators on the first day of its 60-day legislative session. Let's walk through the math of his budget. Scott proposed a two-year budget that cuts a host of taxes and fees.Here's a breakdown from the governor's office. Scott's budget proposal would: Reduce the corporate income taxfrom 5.5 percent to 3 percent in 2011-12 and from 3 percent to 2.5 percent in 2012-13. The rate cut will save those who pay the tax $459 million this year and a little more than $1 billion in 2012-13;Reduce the required local effort, a property tax to fund schools, saving taxpayers around $600 million in 2011-12. The tax cut would carry forward in 2012-13;Reduce the property tax collected by state water management districts25 percent for two years, saving taxpayers $180 million annually; Reduce unemployment compensation taxes by shortening how long Floridians can collect benefits and making it more difficult for them to be eligible. Scott's office says that will save $630.8 million over two years; Roll back 2009 Legislature-approved fee increases for driver licenses, vehicle registrations and other motor vehicle fees. Scott says the rollback would save drivers $492 million over two years; And repeal or alter other small taxes on ammonia, pesticides, fertilizer, solvents, dry cleaning, tires and lead acid batteries, among other things. The changes would save $77 million over two years, Scott's office says.Taken together, that is a total of $1.7 billion in tax and fee cuts in 2011-12 -- slightly below the figure he claimed in his speech. (Scott's office, by the way, claims a total of $4.1 billion over two years, but that number is deceivingbecause most cuts in the second year of Scott's budget aren'tadditionalcuts; they are just the same cuts rolled over.) Scott said his budget cuts taxes by $2 billion. But really, the number is about 15 percent high, based on the estimates of his own budget office. We rate this claim Mostly True.

['State Budget', 'Florida']

True

Let's walk through the math of his budget. Scott proposed a two-year budget that cuts a host of taxes and fees.Here's a breakdown from the governor's office. Scott's budget proposal would:Reduce the corporate income taxfrom 5.5 percent to 3 percent in 2011-12 and from 3 percent to 2.5 percent in 2012-13. The rate cut will save those who pay the tax $459 million this year and a little more than $1 billion in 2012-13;Reduce the required local effort, a property tax to fund schools, saving taxpayers around $600 million in 2011-12. The tax cut would carry forward in 2012-13;Reduce the property tax collected by state water management districts25 percent for two years, saving taxpayers $180 million annually; Reduce unemployment compensation taxes by shortening how long Floridians can collect benefits and making it more difficult for them to be eligible. Scott's office says that will save $630.8 million over two years; Roll back 2009 Legislature-approved fee increases for driver licenses, vehicle registrations and other motor vehicle fees. Scott says the rollback would save drivers $492 million over two years; And repeal or alter other small taxes on ammonia, pesticides, fertilizer, solvents, dry cleaning, tires and lead acid batteries, among other things. The changes would save $77 million over two years, Scott's office says.Taken together, that is a total of $1.7 billion in tax and fee cuts in 2011-12 -- slightly below the figure he claimed in his speech. (Scott's office, by the way, claims a total of $4.1 billion over two years, but that number is deceivingbecause most cuts in the second year of Scott's budget aren'tadditionalcuts; they are just the same cuts rolled over.)

Did Kanye West Say He's a 'Proud Non-Reader of Books'?

[' "I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life," he said in 2009.']

In 2015, a Snopes reader emailed us, asking: Did Kanye West actually say: 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and soself-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a booksautograph. I am a proud non-reader of books.' OnFeb. 13,2015, the website for the UK version ofMarie Clairemagazine published an article titled 21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us. The collection of Wests comments was curated in response to the rappers behavior on the evening of the57th AnnualGrammy Awards, particularly his rant about musician Beck as the latter received the Album of the Year award. Among Wests collected quotes, one in particular stood out. It concerned Kanyes feelings on the matter of books and reading in general, and many readers questioned whether the quote was genuine: Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed. I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. I am a proud non-reader of books. After interest in the comment attributed to West was revived, it appeared on a number of memes that circulated via Facebook. The remarks were indeed correctly attributed (though lacking context) and dated to a 2009Reuters article about the publication of a book penned by West: Reuters article Rapper Kanye West does not read books or respect them but nevertheless he has written one that he would like you to buy and read. Wests derision of books comes despite the fact that his late mother, Donda West, was a university English professor before she retired to manage his music career. She died in 2007 of complications following cosmetic surgery. 'Sometimes people write novels and they just be so wordy and so self-absorbed,' West said. 'I am not a fan of books. I would never want a books autograph. 'I am a proud non-reader of books. I like to get information from doing stuff like actually talking to people and living real life,' he said. Egan, Mark. Proud Non-Reader Kanye West Turns Author. Reuters. 5 May 2009. Ramsdale, Susannah. 21 Kanye West Quotes That Completely Baffled Us.Marie Claire. 13 February 2015.

['interest']

True

After interest in the comment attributed to West was revived, it appeared on a number of memes that circulated via Facebook. The remarks were indeed correctly attributed (though lacking context) and dated to a 2009Reuters article about the publication of a book penned by West:

Public Broadcasting Cuts (2005)

['Would legislation currently under consideration substantially cut federal funding of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting?']

Claim: Legislation currently under consideration would cut $100 million in federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Status: Was true; proposal has been defeated. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2005] You know that email petition that keeps circulating about how Congress is slashing funding for NPR and PBS? Well, now it's actually true. (Really. Check at the bottom if you don't believe me.) Sign the petition telling Congress to save NPR and PBS: https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ A House panel has voted to eliminate all public funding for NPR and PBS, starting with "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," and other commercial-free children's shows. If approved, this would be the most severe cut in the history of public broadcasting, threatening to pull the plug on Big Bird, Cookie Monster, and Oscar the Grouch. The cuts would slash 25% of the federal funding this year—$100 million—and end funding altogether within two years. The loss could kill beloved children's shows like "Clifford the Big Red Dog," "Arthur," and "Postcards from Buster." Rural stations and those serving low-income communities might not survive. Other stations would have to increase corporate sponsorships. Already, 300,000 people have signed the petition. Can you help us reach 400,000 signatures today? https://www.moveon.org/publicbroadcasting/ Origins: Although a long-outdated piece decrying supposed upcoming cuts in funding for the NEA, NPR, PBS, and Sesame Street has been circulating for years (it addressed legislation already voted upon way back in 1995), recent congressional efforts have brought the issue to public attention again. In June 2005, the House Appropriations Committee voted to sharply reduce federal financial support for public broadcasting. If this budgetary plan were approved, it would eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), money which currently makes up 15% of the funding for public broadcasting. As the Washington Post reported: A House subcommittee voted yesterday to sharply reduce the federal government's financial support for public broadcasting, including eliminating taxpayer funds that help underwrite such popular children's educational programs as "Sesame Street," "Reading Rainbow," "Arthur," and "Postcards From Buster." In addition, the subcommittee acted to eliminate within two years all federal money for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which passes federal funds to public broadcasters, starting with a 25 percent reduction in CPB's budget for next year, from $400 million to $300 million. In all, the cuts would represent the most drastic cutback of public broadcasting since Congress created the nonprofit CPB in 1967. The CPB funds are particularly important for small TV and radio stations and account for about 15 percent of the public broadcasting industry's total revenue. The House measure also cuts support for a variety of smaller projects, such as a $39.6 million public TV satellite distribution network and a $39.4 million program that helps public stations update their analog TV signals to digital format. Although this legislation, if approved, would not (as claimed in older petitions) affect funding for the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA), it would obviously have a significant impact on public broadcasting outlets, which would have to turn to other sources to try to make up the lost revenue. On 23 June 2005, the House of Representatives decided, by a 284-140 vote, to rescind the House Appropriations Committee's proposed $100 million cut in federal funds from the budget for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. Other areas of public broadcasting, however, may still face budget reductions if proposed funding cuts are not overturned: But Elmo and Big Bird remain at risk. The House did not restore all of the public broadcasting funding cuts proposed for 2006. Although yesterday's amendment would bump CPB's general budget back to $400 million, the 2005 funding level, an additional $102.4 million that had been cut from separate public broadcasting programs was not restored. That money underwrites the production of such PBS children's programs as "Sesame Street," "Arthur," and "Postcards From Buster." The money that would be cut also pays for satellite technology, basic equipment purchases, and a federal mandate program to convert public TV stations from analog transmission to digital signal technology. Last updated: 24 June 2005 Sources: Farhi, Paul. "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House." The Washington Post. 10 June 2005 (p. A1). Gold, Matea and Jube Shiver. "Public Broadcasting Funds May Be Halved." Los Angeles Times. 17 June 2005 (p. A28). Murray, Shailagh and Paul Farhi. "House Vote Spares Public Broadcasting Funds." The Washington Post. 24 June 2005 (p. A6). Taylor, Andrew. "House Rescinds Proposed Cut in Federal Support of Public Broadcasting." Associated Press. 23 June 2005.

['budget']

True

Is a 'Beware of Artists' Poster from the McCarthy Era?

['While this poster may express the sentiments of the McCarthy era, this quote can actually be traced back to the 1800s. ']

An image supposedly showing a "Beware of Artists" poster issued during the 1950s by Joseph McCarthy, a U.S. senator known for making accusations of treason and spreading fears of communism, is frequently shared on social media. The poster reads, "Beware of artists. They mix with all classes of society and are therefore the most dangerous." The McCarthy era certainly saw its fair share of propaganda posters, and artists, particularly filmmakers, were often the targets of Congressional investigations into "un-American activities." Although the poster displayed above may express the sentiments of that time, its phrasing did not originate in the 1950s. This warning about "dangerous" artists can actually be traced back to the 19th century. In 1845, Leopold I, King of the Belgians, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria in which he expressed a similar warning against artists: "My Dearest Victoria - All you say about our dear Albert, whom I love like my own child, is perfectly true. The attacks, however unjust, have but one advantage, that of showing the points the enemy thinks weakest and best calculated to hurt. This, being the case, Anson, without boring A. with daily accounts which in the end become very irksome, should pay attention to these very points and contribute to avoid what may be turned to account by the enemy. To hope to escape censure and calumny is next to impossible, but whatever is considered by the enemy as a fit subject for attack is better modified or avoided. The dealings with artists, for instance, require great prudence; they are acquainted with all classes of society, and for that very reason dangerous; they are hardly ever satisfied, and when you have too much to do with them, you are sure to have des ennuis... Your devoted Uncle, Leopold R." We have not been able to determine who revised King Leopold's words into a more modern phrasing or exactly when posters bearing those words may have been created, but we found no record of such a poster circulating during the 1950s. The earliest iteration of this image we've found (multiple online versions of this version employ different fonts, colors, and composition) only dates back to 2012. This "Beware of Artists" poster is a modern expression of a political opinion that has been extant since at least the mid-1800s.

['share']

False

An image supposedly showing a "Beware of Artists" poster issued during the 1950s by Joseph McCarthy, a U.S. senator known for making accusations of treason and spreading fears of communism, is frequently shared on social media:The McCarthy era certainly saw its fair share of propaganda posters, and artists particularly filmmakers were often the targets of Congressional investigations into "un-American activities." Although the poster displayed above may express the sentiments of that time, its phrasing did not originate in the 1950s.This warning about "dangerous" artists can actually be traced back to the 19th century. In 1845, Leopold I, King of the Belgians, wrote a letter to Queen Victoria in which he expressed a similar warning against artists (emphasis ours):We have not been able to determine who revised King Leopold's words into a more modern phrasing or exactly when posters bearing those words may have been created, but we found no record of such a poster's circulating during the 1950s. The earliest iteration of this image we've found (multiple online versions of this version employ different fonts, colors, and composition) only dates as far back as 2012.

Says if labor force participation rate were the same as when Barack Obama became president, unemployment would be 11 percent.

[]

At the Texas Republican Partys 2012 convention, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin told the crowd that the high stakes in Novembers election include American jobs.If the amount of Americans were in the workforce today like they were when President Obama took office, the labor force participation rate, our unemployment rate would be 11 percent today, the House Budget Committee chairman said in his keynote speech June 9, 2012.We decided to check.First, we defined our terms.The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the U.S. labor force participation rate by taking the total workforce -- people who are employed or job-hunting -- and dividing by the total civilian population aged 16 or older. (People in military, medical or penal institutions are excluded. )The general unemployment rate, which is the one most people are familiar with, expresses how many people in the labor force are unemployed.Generally, climbs and dips in the general unemployment rate are a reasonable indicator that more Americans are losing jobs or getting hired, respectively. But in times of recession, high numbers of workers simply stop looking for jobs. Common reasons they give are retirement, disability, going to school or caring for household members,according toresearchers at the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank who drew on federal data.But when adults stop looking for work, the overall workforce shrinks, which can have the effect of reducing the unemployment rate -- which could lead to erroneous conclusions about U.S. economic conditions.To counteract that effect, the BLS also calculates what it calls the U-6 unemployment rate, which folds in people who stopped job-hunting and people who took part-time jobs for economic reasons. Since the U-6 rate was first published in 1994, its three highest points have all accompaniedrecessions, first in 1990-91, then 2001 and most recently 2007-09.Of late, Republicans have taken to highlighting this distinction, as Ryan does here.His claim can be restated this way: If the same percentage of Americans were employed or looking for work inMay 2012as in January 2009, general unemployment would have been 11 percent instead of 8.2 percent.We asked Ryans office for his backup materials, and spokesman Kevin Seifert sent us data, calculations and supporting news coverage.Seifert told us by email thataccording to the BLS, the January 2009 workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent, while the May 2012 rate was 63.8 percent. Applying those to the May 2012 population of 243 million, he said, gives a labor force of 159.6 million at the first rate and 155 million at the latter rate.Subtracting the real labor force (155 million) from the hypothetical labor force (159.6 million) shows that 4.6 million more people would actively be seeking work right now instead of being characterized as discouraged, etc., he wrote.Adding 4.6 million unemployed workers to the May 2012 unemployment count, which was 12.7 million, would give a total 17.3 million unemployed, Seifert said. Then, 17.3 million unemployed people divided by 155 million would give a general unemployment rate of 11.2 percent, Seifert said.We checked thenumbersand math for ourselves, then asked Cheryl Abbot, a Dallas-based regional economist for the labor bureau, for help analyzing the calculations. It looked to us like Ryan should have divided by the hypothetical labor force, rather than the real May 2012 labor force (to correctly describe the unemployment rate of the larger, hypothetical group), and Abbot agreed. But neither that distinction nor small differences due to causes such as rounding off numbers seriously affected the result.Accepting the assumption that all 4.6 million adults added to the labor force would be unemployed -- and using BLS figures that were not rounded off as much as the ones Seifert used to describe his math to us -- Abbot got a result of 10.9 percent.Our rulingThe general unemployment rate in June 2012 would have been 10.9 percent if the labor force participation rate had remained at the 65.5 percent in place when Obama became president. Thats about 11 percent.We rate Ryans statement True.

['Economy', 'Jobs', 'Texas']

True

At the Texas Republican Partys 2012 convention, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan of Wisconsin told the crowd that the high stakes in Novembers election include American jobs.If the amount of Americans were in the workforce today like they were when President Obama took office, the labor force participation rate, our unemployment rate would be 11 percent today, the House Budget Committee chairman said in his keynote speech June 9, 2012.We decided to check.First, we defined our terms.The federal Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates the U.S. labor force participation rate by taking the total workforce -- people who are employed or job-hunting -- and dividing by the total civilian population aged 16 or older. (People in military, medical or penal institutions are excluded.)The general unemployment rate, which is the one most people are familiar with, expresses how many people in the labor force are unemployed.Generally, climbs and dips in the general unemployment rate are a reasonable indicator that more Americans are losing jobs or getting hired, respectively. But in times of recession, high numbers of workers simply stop looking for jobs. Common reasons they give are retirement, disability, going to school or caring for household members,according toresearchers at the Atlanta Federal Reserve Bank who drew on federal data.But when adults stop looking for work, the overall workforce shrinks, which can have the effect of reducing the unemployment rate -- which could lead to erroneous conclusions about U.S. economic conditions.To counteract that effect, the BLS also calculates what it calls the U-6 unemployment rate, which folds in people who stopped job-hunting and people who took part-time jobs for economic reasons. Since the U-6 rate was first published in 1994, its three highest points have all accompaniedrecessions, first in 1990-91, then 2001 and most recently 2007-09.Of late, Republicans have taken to highlighting this distinction, as Ryan does here.His claim can be restated this way: If the same percentage of Americans were employed or looking for work inMay 2012as in January 2009, general unemployment would have been 11 percent instead of 8.2 percent.We asked Ryans office for his backup materials, and spokesman Kevin Seifert sent us data, calculations and supporting news coverage.Seifert told us by email thataccording to the BLS, the January 2009 workforce participation rate was 65.7 percent, while the May 2012 rate was 63.8 percent. Applying those to the May 2012 population of 243 million, he said, gives a labor force of 159.6 million at the first rate and 155 million at the latter rate.Subtracting the real labor force (155 million) from the hypothetical labor force (159.6 million) shows that 4.6 million more people would actively be seeking work right now instead of being characterized as discouraged, etc., he wrote.Adding 4.6 million unemployed workers to the May 2012 unemployment count, which was 12.7 million, would give a total 17.3 million unemployed, Seifert said. Then, 17.3 million unemployed people divided by 155 million would give a general unemployment rate of 11.2 percent, Seifert said.We checked thenumbersand math for ourselves, then asked Cheryl Abbot, a Dallas-based regional economist for the labor bureau, for help analyzing the calculations. It looked to us like Ryan should have divided by the hypothetical labor force, rather than the real May 2012 labor force (to correctly describe the unemployment rate of the larger, hypothetical group), and Abbot agreed. But neither that distinction nor small differences due to causes such as rounding off numbers seriously affected the result.Accepting the assumption that all 4.6 million adults added to the labor force would be unemployed -- and using BLS figures that were not rounded off as much as the ones Seifert used to describe his math to us -- Abbot got a result of 10.9 percent.Our rulingThe general unemployment rate in June 2012 would have been 10.9 percent if the labor force participation rate had remained at the 65.5 percent in place when Obama became president. Thats about 11 percent.We rate Ryans statement True.

Was Carter's peanut farm sold when he assumed the presidency?

['Social media users were back in the business of comparing presidential business practices in spring 2020. ']

As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepared to take office in December 2016, multiple news reports addressed the potential conflicts of interest he would face as he transitioned from a businessman to chief executive. Many critics urged Trump to divest himself of his businesses and cited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's sale of his peanut farm as an exemplary model of how to head off such potential conflicts of interest. In May 2020, after an appeals court ruled that a lawsuit could proceed alleging that Trump had violated the constitution by receiving foreign money through his hotels, comparisons between Carter and Trump once again gained traction on social media. While Carter did place his businesses into a blind trust before he was elected president in 1977, he didn't actually sell his peanut farm until he left office in 1981. On Jan. 5, 1977, Carter released a plan detailing how his assets would be handled when he assumed office. Carter listed eight actions that he would take to avoid conflicts of interest, including transferring Carter's Warehouse, Carter Farms, and all funds related to those business ventures into a trust. The transition group studied existing laws and regulations regarding conflicts of interest and the regulation of ethics for officials in the executive branch of government. The existing law is extremely strong in prohibiting outside earned income. Governor Carter heavily approves of that law and its policy. In order to prevent possible financial conflicts of interest while President, Governor Jimmy Carter is taking the following actions: 1. All common stock is being sold, consisting of 100 shares of Rich's, Inc. and 956 shares of Advanced Investors. A small net loss on this stock is likely. 2. Jimmy Carter's interest in (a) Carter's Warehouse and Carter Farms, Inc., and any funds related to them (b) all property except the private home and personal items, and (c) his father's estate will be transferred to a trust. Income or principal from the trust will be available to Jimmy Carter but only as distributions of cash. Carter's business suffered significantly while he served as president, but it wasn't until he left office in 1981 that the decision was made to sell the family farm. While he served as president, Jimmy Carter placed the family farm supply business into the protection of a blind trust before he left for Washington, D.C. in 1977. This trust allowed a law firm in Atlanta to take full administration of the farm supply business during his years in the White House. The Carters felt that relinquishing the business to someone else's care would separate them from these affairs and avoid the possibility of their financial holdings resembling any conflict of interest while President Carter was in office. Their personal counsel, Charles Kirbo of the Atlanta law firm, was their financial trustee. Following the election loss in 1981, the Carters were informed by Charles Kirbo that because of three years of drought and several changes in warehouse management, they were over $1 million in debt. As they struggled to recover from the unexpected financial blow, the solution to their problem became evident. The Carters sold the family business and also began writing books, which helped them recover financially. Regarding a meme's claim that Carter was still building houses at the age of 92, that is, for the most part, true. Carter has been building houses with Habitat for Humanity since 1984. At the age of 92, he was still actively participating in the construction of new homes. The above-displayed meme is a few years old, however, as Carter is 95 years old at the time of this writing in May 2020. If the text of this meme was altered to give Carter's current age, it would still be true. In October 2019, shortly after suffering a fall at his home that required stitches, Carter was back on the construction site. A Habitat for Humanity's Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project has also been announced in the Dominican Republic for November 2020, but it's unclear if Carter will travel to the country to take part in the construction. Since beginning their work with Habitat for Humanity in 1984, President and Mrs. Carter have helped to build, renovate, and repair 4,390 homes in 14 countries alongside more than 104,000 volunteers through their annual work project. Since its founding in 1976, Habitat has served more than 22 million people around the world. "We are honored to host the 2020 Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project in the Dominican Republic," said Cesarina Fabin, national director of Habitat for Humanity Dominican Republic. "President and Mrs. Carter are shining examples of service. We are so grateful for their commitment to building a world where everyone has a safe and decent place to live." In summary, Carter placed his peanut farm into a blind trust when he took office in 1977. It wasn't until he left office four years later that the farm was sold. With that in mind, we rate this claim "Mixture."

['income']

NEI

As U.S. President-elect Donald Trump prepared to take office in December 2016, multiple news reports addressed the potential conflicts of interest he would face as he transitioned from a businessman to chief executive. Many critics urged Trump to divest himself of his businesses and cited former U.S. President Jimmy Carter's sale of his peanut farm as an exemplary model of how to head off such potential conflicts:In May 2020, after an appeals court ruled that a lawsuit could proceed alleging that Trump had violated the constitution by receiving foreign money through his hotels, comparisons between Carter and Trump once again gained traction on social media:On Jan. 5, 1977, Carter released a plan detailing how his assets would be handled when he assumed office. Carter listed eight actions that he would take to avoid conflicts of interest, including transferring Carter's Warehouse, Carter Farms, and all funds related to those business ventures into a trust:Carter's business suffered significantly while he served as president, but it wasn't until he left office in 1981 that the decision was made to sell the family farm:If the text of this meme was altered to give Carter's current age, it would still be true. In October 2019, shortly after suffering a fall at his home that required stitches, Carter was back on the construction site. A Habitat for Humanitys Jimmy & Rosalynn Carter Work Project has also been announced in the Dominican Republic for November 2020, but it's unclear if Carter will travel to the country to take part in the construction:

Says About 7 in 10 of Oregons inmates are in prison for violent crimes and serious sex offenses.

[]

Frankly, PolitiFact Oregon was surprised to spota press release fora new radio campaign ad designed to set the record straight on Oregons prisons laws. We didnt know there was a need. Was there another ballot measure pending? Was somebody spreading falsehoods about prison laws? Didnt Oregonians vote on sentencing back in 2008? What was going on?Steve Doell is a longtime advocate of crime victims and president ofCrime Victims United, which helped get Measure 11 passed in 1994. This ad campaign is his latest venture, a nonprofit that he says is separate from Crime Victims and one that he said is aimed at giving people the facts about prison statistics.He wants to remind voters through the Truth in Sentencing Project that fewer than one in four convicted felons is sent to prison. Less than one-half of one-percent are in prison for drug possession. And this:About 7 in 10 of Oregons inmates are in prison for violent crimes and serious sex offenses including felony assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, manslaughter, child molestation, rape, attempted murder, and murder, he writes in the press release.In the accompanying radio ad, he says two-thirds of prisoners are violent criminals. In short, Oregons system works, he said. Doell got his numbers from theOregon Criminal Justice Commission, which administers Oregon's felony sentencing guidelines and serves as a statistical and data clearinghouse. Off we went, with a detour stop at the Department of Corrections.According to theagencys July 2012 inmate population profile, 9,878 of the 14,186 people in prison were there because of crimes against a person. That is 70 percent, or more than two-thirds. Hold on to the idea of a person crime.The same population profile also tells us that nearly 9,300 of those inmates are in prison for crimes one could describe as violent: Assault, homicide, rape, kidnapping, robbery, sodomy and sex abuse. Thats about 65 percent, which is about two-thirds.We caught up with Craig Prins, the criminal justice commissions executive director, who confirms that 70 percent of inmates have committed a crime against a person -- but he wanted to make sure we understand that that doesnt mean they are all necessarily violent criminals, on par with murderers and child molesters.For example, a drunken driver who doesnt kill anyone is categorized as committing a crime against a person, even though no one was hurt. A drunken driver who hits and kills another person has definitely committed a crime against a person, even though there was no intent to commit homicide. For Prins there is a distinction. For Doell, there isnt. We offer the information for readers to assess.We also have another point that readers may want to keep in mind: More non-violent offenders are being admitted into prison -- which means that the ratio of violent offenders may drop in the future.Thats because in 2008, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 57, which increased sentences for drug and property offenders. It was a legislative proposal drafted in response to a more punishing measure sponsored by Doell and others. Property and drug offenders sentenced under Measure 57 are expected to add 1,000 beds to the prison system over 10 years with overall bed growth closer to 2,000.Prins and others onGov. John Kitzhabers Commission on Public Safety have been tasked with finding ways to improve public safety and save money. The commission is to come up with ideas for the 2013 Legislature. And while Doell insists the Truth in Sentencing Project is not in response to an outside force, its clear this governor wants to make changes in state prisons.A June report by the Pew Center on the States, which is providing technical help to Oregon to review numbers and tease out prison growth drivers, states thatOregon in 2011 admitted more low-risk offenders than in 2000. Also, the share ofproperty, drug and other offenders increased from 53 percent of new admits in 2000 to 59 percent in 2011. (p.20) In other words, trends are changing and they may change more with the approval of Measure 57, which went into effect in January.Doell says the state doesnt have the greatest record on correctly projecting bed additions. He also doesnt think Measure 57 will change the ratio that much. I dont think theres going to be a significant change, I think it could be a percentage point or points here and there, he said.We think readers should be mindful that there is a forecast and new sentencing guidelines that may change the ratio in the future, but we dont know for sure by how much, if at all. The state would not hazard a projection other than the overall increase of 2,000 beds, of which at least 1,000 come from Measure 57.As for a ruling? It is factually correct that as of now, 70 percent of inmates are in prison for crimes against a person, and that 65 percent are in there for crimes we can see are violent in nature. That is about seven in 10 or two-thirds. We rate the statement True.

['Oregon', 'Criminal Justice', 'Crime', 'Public Safety', 'State Budget']

True

Frankly, PolitiFact Oregon was surprised to spota press release fora new radio campaign ad designed to set the record straight on Oregons prisons laws. We didnt know there was a need. Was there another ballot measure pending? Was somebody spreading falsehoods about prison laws? Didnt Oregonians vote on sentencing back in 2008? What was going on?Steve Doell is a longtime advocate of crime victims and president ofCrime Victims United, which helped get Measure 11 passed in 1994. This ad campaign is his latest venture, a nonprofit that he says is separate from Crime Victims and one that he said is aimed at giving people the facts about prison statistics.He wants to remind voters through the Truth in Sentencing Project that fewer than one in four convicted felons is sent to prison. Less than one-half of one-percent are in prison for drug possession. And this:About 7 in 10 of Oregons inmates are in prison for violent crimes and serious sex offenses including felony assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, manslaughter, child molestation, rape, attempted murder, and murder, he writes in the press release.In the accompanying radio ad, he says two-thirds of prisoners are violent criminals. In short, Oregons system works, he said. Doell got his numbers from theOregon Criminal Justice Commission, which administers Oregon's felony sentencing guidelines and serves as a statistical and data clearinghouse. Off we went, with a detour stop at the Department of Corrections.According to theagencys July 2012 inmate population profile, 9,878 of the 14,186 people in prison were there because of crimes against a person. That is 70 percent, or more than two-thirds. Hold on to the idea of a person crime.The same population profile also tells us that nearly 9,300 of those inmates are in prison for crimes one could describe as violent: Assault, homicide, rape, kidnapping, robbery, sodomy and sex abuse. Thats about 65 percent, which is about two-thirds.We caught up with Craig Prins, the criminal justice commissions executive director, who confirms that 70 percent of inmates have committed a crime against a person -- but he wanted to make sure we understand that that doesnt mean they are all necessarily violent criminals, on par with murderers and child molesters.For example, a drunken driver who doesnt kill anyone is categorized as committing a crime against a person, even though no one was hurt. A drunken driver who hits and kills another person has definitely committed a crime against a person, even though there was no intent to commit homicide. For Prins there is a distinction. For Doell, there isnt. We offer the information for readers to assess.We also have another point that readers may want to keep in mind: More non-violent offenders are being admitted into prison -- which means that the ratio of violent offenders may drop in the future.Thats because in 2008, Oregon voters approved Ballot Measure 57, which increased sentences for drug and property offenders. It was a legislative proposal drafted in response to a more punishing measure sponsored by Doell and others. Property and drug offenders sentenced under Measure 57 are expected to add 1,000 beds to the prison system over 10 years with overall bed growth closer to 2,000.Prins and others onGov. John Kitzhabers Commission on Public Safety have been tasked with finding ways to improve public safety and save money. The commission is to come up with ideas for the 2013 Legislature. And while Doell insists the Truth in Sentencing Project is not in response to an outside force, its clear this governor wants to make changes in state prisons.A June report by the Pew Center on the States, which is providing technical help to Oregon to review numbers and tease out prison growth drivers, states thatOregon in 2011 admitted more low-risk offenders than in 2000. Also, the share ofproperty, drug and other offenders increased from 53 percent of new admits in 2000 to 59 percent in 2011. (p.20) In other words, trends are changing and they may change more with the approval of Measure 57, which went into effect in January.Doell says the state doesnt have the greatest record on correctly projecting bed additions. He also doesnt think Measure 57 will change the ratio that much. I dont think theres going to be a significant change, I think it could be a percentage point or points here and there, he said.We think readers should be mindful that there is a forecast and new sentencing guidelines that may change the ratio in the future, but we dont know for sure by how much, if at all. The state would not hazard a projection other than the overall increase of 2,000 beds, of which at least 1,000 come from Measure 57.As for a ruling? It is factually correct that as of now, 70 percent of inmates are in prison for crimes against a person, and that 65 percent are in there for crimes we can see are violent in nature. That is about seven in 10 or two-thirds. We rate the statement True.

Is Stacey Abrams obligated to pay back taxes exceeding $50,000?

['A graphic criticizing the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate was not inaccurate, but neither was it a "gotcha" moment.']

A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams owing a substantial amount in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details in an attempt to frame her as irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading, "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams, the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes." Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. However, although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show she is on a payment plan after deferring payments for the tax years 2015 and 2016. The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on April 24, 2018, stating that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education left her with more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on additional financial responsibilities. She wrote, "I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today I remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations—however slowly but surely." Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC. Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that, according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company.

['investment']

True

Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016.The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities:Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC. Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company.

Is Stacey Abrams facing a debt exceeding $50,000 in unpaid taxes?

['A graphic criticizing the 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate was not inaccurate, but neither was it a "gotcha" moment.']

A graphic circulated online about 2018 Georgia gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams owing a large sum in back taxes was technically accurate, but it omitted several key details in an attempt to frame her as irresponsible or dishonest. The meme showed a photograph of Abrams along with a caption reading, "This is Stacy [sic] Abrams, the Democrat on the ticket for Georgia governor. She owes the IRS $50,000 in back taxes." Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. However, although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show she is on a payment plan after deferring payments for the tax years 2015 and 2016. The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on April 24, 2018, stating that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education left her with more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on additional financial responsibilities. She wrote, "I'd love to say that was the end of my financial troubles, but life had other plans. In 2006, my youngest brother and his girlfriend had a child they could not care for due to their drug addictions. Instead, my parents took custody when my niece was five days old. Underpaid, raising an infant, and battling their own illnesses, my parents' bills piled up. I took on much of the financial responsibility to support them, and even today, I remain their main source of financial support. Paying the bills for two households has taken its toll. Nearly twenty years after graduating, I am still paying down student loans and am on a payment plan to settle my debt to the IRS. I have made money mistakes, but I have never ignored my responsibilities; I will meet my obligations—however slowly but surely." Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC. Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that, according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company.

['loan']

True

Abrams publicly revealed that she owed a $54,000 debt to the Internal Revenue Service when she released her personal financial disclosure documents in March 2018. But although she is in debt, she is not delinquent in her taxes, as documents show her to be on a payment plan after deferring payments for tax years 2015 and 2016.The candidate elaborated on her situation in an op-ed published by Fortune magazine on 24 April 2018, saying that even though she earned $95,000 a year at her first job after graduating college, the cost of her education still left her more than $100,000 in debt before she had to take on even more financial responsibilities:Abrams' opponent in the 2018 gubernatorial race (which she lost), Republican Brian Kemp, was reportedly also in heavy debt. He was sued by an investment company in June 2018 after allegedly failing to repay a $500,000 loan he guaranteed for an agricultural company in which he invested, Hart AgStrong LLC. Kemp has claimed that he is not responsible for paying the loan, but the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported in September 2018 that according to court documents, Kemp also promised to cover around $10 million in other loans for the company.

Did Harry Truman Denounce the Use of 'Socialism' as a 'Scare Word'?

['"Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people."']

In early 2019, several progressive Democratic politicians who were frequent headline subjects including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Sen. Bernie Senators of Vermont, and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota were often tagged by critics with the word "socialist," used as a pejorative. At the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), for example, Republicans warned of "radical" Democrats "embracing socialism." News accounts proclaimed that "Republicans are determined to paint Democrats as out-of-control, out-of-their minds socialists." CPAC accounts That political climate touched off the online circulation of a memetic quote from 33rd U.S. President Harry S. Truman, who purportedly fended off similar attacks on Democrats in 1952 by declaring that "socialism" was a "scare word [Republicans] have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years": The circulated meme was an accurate reproduction of a portion of a campaign speechTruman delivered from the rear platform of a train in Syracuse, New York, on 10 October 1952. (Truman himself was not a candidate for re-election that year, but he stumped for the Democratic ticket, headed by Illinois Gov.Adlai Stevenson II). Much of Truman's speech was a caustic rebuke of Republicans (and their presidential nominee, General Dwight D. Eisenhower), whom Truman characterized as having "opposed almost all our programs to help the economic life of the country" and "having blindly turned [their] back on the tradition of public action for the public good": speech [Republican Senator Robert] Taft explained that the great issue in this campaign is "creeping socialism." Now that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years. Socialism is what they called public power. Socialism is what they called social security. Socialism is what they called farm price supports. Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance. Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations. Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people. When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan "Down With Socialism" on the banner of his "great crusade," that is really not what he means at all. What he really means is, "Down with Progress -- down with Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal," and "down with Harry Truman's fair Deal." That is what he means. Truman had earlier touched on the idea of "socialism" as a Republican scare word during an address he delivered at a Better Business Bureaus dinner on 6 June 1950, leading into a sardonic joke about New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey (the unsuccessful Republican presidential nominee in the 1944 and 1948 elections): address I know that you have been hearing a lot of charges lately about Government interference with business, about the undermining of the free enterprise system, and about "creeping socialism." In short, you have been hearing that the Government is doing everything possible to wreck every industry in the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. The record shows that the Government action in recent years has been the salvation of private enterprise ... I know there are some people who still don't believe that the policies of the Government have had anything to do with our present prosperity. That reminds me of a story I heard on my recent nonpolitical trip. It seems that there was a rock-ribbed old gentleman of a political persuasion, shall we say, somewhat different from mine. One of his friends asked him what man to vote for for President in 1952. "Well," he said, "I would like to vote for Dewey." "Dewey!" said the friend. "Why Dewey?" "Well," he said, "I voted for him the last two times, in 1944 and in 1948, and business has never been so good as it is today" ... The funny thing is that this has all been said before. The current campaign is almost exactly like the campaign of the old Liberty League, back in 1935 and 1936. I was in that campaign, too, by the way. It uses the same old slogans, the same old scare words, and the same old falsehoods. The only difference is that it sounds even more foolish now than it did 14 years ago. Lightman, David. "Accusations of Socialism Drive GOP's 2019 (and 2020) Playbook." The [Tacoma] News Tribune. 12 February 2019. Pappas, Alex. "At CPAC, Conservatives Warn of 'Radical' Dems Embracing Socialism, Trump Impeachment." Fox News. 28 February 2019. Truman, Harry S. "Address at a Dinner of the Better Business Bureaus." The American Presidency Project. 6 June 1950. Truman, Harry S. "Rear Platform and Other Informal Remarks in New York ." The American Presidency Project. 10 October 1952.

['insurance']

True

In early 2019, several progressive Democratic politicians who were frequent headline subjects including Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York, Sen. Bernie Senators of Vermont, and Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota were often tagged by critics with the word "socialist," used as a pejorative. At the recently concluded Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), for example, Republicans warned of "radical" Democrats "embracing socialism." News accounts proclaimed that "Republicans are determined to paint Democrats as out-of-control, out-of-their minds socialists."The circulated meme was an accurate reproduction of a portion of a campaign speechTruman delivered from the rear platform of a train in Syracuse, New York, on 10 October 1952. (Truman himself was not a candidate for re-election that year, but he stumped for the Democratic ticket, headed by Illinois Gov.Adlai Stevenson II). Much of Truman's speech was a caustic rebuke of Republicans (and their presidential nominee, General Dwight D. Eisenhower), whom Truman characterized as having "opposed almost all our programs to help the economic life of the country" and "having blindly turned [their] back on the tradition of public action for the public good":Truman had earlier touched on the idea of "socialism" as a Republican scare word during an address he delivered at a Better Business Bureaus dinner on 6 June 1950, leading into a sardonic joke about New York Gov. Thomas E. Dewey (the unsuccessful Republican presidential nominee in the 1944 and 1948 elections):

(Strickland) raised taxes last year to the tune of $840 million.

[]

Over the past month of their hotly contested race for governor, Republican challenger John Kasich has accused Gov. Ted Strickland of raising taxes on Ohioans, a charge the Democratic governor has vehemently denied.Kasich has leveled the tax hike charge in his public speeches, during both gubernatorial debates and in campaign commercials. He says the governors decision last December to halt a scheduled 2009 income tax cut essentially took away $844 million in refunds earmarked for Ohioans and instead gave it to the government.A television ad from the Republican Governors Association released this month features still photographs of Strickland with a woman speaking: Ted Strickland promised not to raise taxes. He broke that promise.Strickland says he didnt raise taxes, he only temporarily froze a planned income tax cut to fill an unexpected budget hole. Stricklands running mate Yvette McGee Brown certainly feels comfortable with that explanation.They had the nerve to say, the Republican Governors Association, that this governor (Strickland) raised taxes $800 million on Ohioans. Not true, Brown said during a rally on Sept. 27 in Cleveland with Strickland standing behind her. And I wish PolitiFact would go check that.So, we are.The tax issue Kasich is referencing is Stricklands decision last year to halt the final year of a five-year, 21-percent across-the-board income tax cut that started in 2005. The move saved the state approximately $840 million, money the governor used to fill a budget hole. The only alternative, Strickland insists, was to cut the equivalent amount of cash out of primary and secondary education.Strickland is careful to characterize his move as having frozen the final year of that tax cut and not having eliminated it altogether. The difference: whats frozen can be thawed and used, but it might not be possible to replicate what has been completely erased.We have cut the state income tax 17 percent since 2005, Strickland said during his Oct. 7 debate against Kasich, taking credit for the first four years of the tax cuts. Strickland became governor in January 2007.And the governor notes that the postponed final year tax cut is scheduled to be reinstated next year after the current budget cycle expires. Also, the decision to freeze the tax cut required legislative approval, which means the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate had to OK the deal and it did narrowly.But having received the first four years of the tax cut, Ohioans were already looking forward to the final year, 4.2 percent reduction, Kasich said, until the governor snatched it away.He raised taxes last year to the tune of $840 million, Kasich said on Oct. 4 during a press conference at the Ohio Republican Party headquarters.To be fair, Strickland had to find a source of revenue or would have had to slash programs. Ohio law requires the state budget be balanced. And part of the reason for the shortfall can be pinned on Republicans, whoincreased spending in seven consecutive budgets while they controlled the General Assembly while also cutting taxes.And the truth is Ohioans didnt pay any more in taxes for 2009 over what they paid in 2008, and maybe less once you factor in some inflationary indexing. So, this was not a tax hike in that sense, which Kasich concedes.But he argues it is an increase when residents are forced to pay more in taxes than they had been promised, or to look at it another way, get back less in their state income tax refund than they anticipated.Those who owed the state after filing their 2009 taxes, owed a little bit extra thanks to Stricklands tax freeze. Stricklands decision cost a family of four earning $60,000 a year about $78 last year.Strickland prides himself on having made tough decisions in rough economic times. One of those decisions was postponing the income tax cut which meant taking money out of the pockets of Ohioans.But while the freeze is expected to be lifted next year, there are no guarantees that will happen in what is still a rough economic landscape for Ohio. And state taxpayers, who had to pay more in income taxes than what had been promised, may continue to pay at the higher rate.We rate Kasichs statement Mostly True. Comment on this item.

['Ohio', 'Taxes']

True

Over the past month of their hotly contested race for governor, Republican challenger John Kasich has accused Gov. Ted Strickland of raising taxes on Ohioans, a charge the Democratic governor has vehemently denied.Kasich has leveled the tax hike charge in his public speeches, during both gubernatorial debates and in campaign commercials. He says the governors decision last December to halt a scheduled 2009 income tax cut essentially took away $844 million in refunds earmarked for Ohioans and instead gave it to the government.A television ad from the Republican Governors Association released this month features still photographs of Strickland with a woman speaking: Ted Strickland promised not to raise taxes. He broke that promise.Strickland says he didnt raise taxes, he only temporarily froze a planned income tax cut to fill an unexpected budget hole. Stricklands running mate Yvette McGee Brown certainly feels comfortable with that explanation.They had the nerve to say, the Republican Governors Association, that this governor (Strickland) raised taxes $800 million on Ohioans. Not true, Brown said during a rally on Sept. 27 in Cleveland with Strickland standing behind her. And I wish PolitiFact would go check that.So, we are.The tax issue Kasich is referencing is Stricklands decision last year to halt the final year of a five-year, 21-percent across-the-board income tax cut that started in 2005. The move saved the state approximately $840 million, money the governor used to fill a budget hole. The only alternative, Strickland insists, was to cut the equivalent amount of cash out of primary and secondary education.Strickland is careful to characterize his move as having frozen the final year of that tax cut and not having eliminated it altogether. The difference: whats frozen can be thawed and used, but it might not be possible to replicate what has been completely erased.We have cut the state income tax 17 percent since 2005, Strickland said during his Oct. 7 debate against Kasich, taking credit for the first four years of the tax cuts. Strickland became governor in January 2007.And the governor notes that the postponed final year tax cut is scheduled to be reinstated next year after the current budget cycle expires. Also, the decision to freeze the tax cut required legislative approval, which means the Republican-controlled Ohio Senate had to OK the deal and it did narrowly.But having received the first four years of the tax cut, Ohioans were already looking forward to the final year, 4.2 percent reduction, Kasich said, until the governor snatched it away.He raised taxes last year to the tune of $840 million, Kasich said on Oct. 4 during a press conference at the Ohio Republican Party headquarters.To be fair, Strickland had to find a source of revenue or would have had to slash programs. Ohio law requires the state budget be balanced. And part of the reason for the shortfall can be pinned on Republicans, whoincreased spending in seven consecutive budgets while they controlled the General Assembly while also cutting taxes.And the truth is Ohioans didnt pay any more in taxes for 2009 over what they paid in 2008, and maybe less once you factor in some inflationary indexing. So, this was not a tax hike in that sense, which Kasich concedes.But he argues it is an increase when residents are forced to pay more in taxes than they had been promised, or to look at it another way, get back less in their state income tax refund than they anticipated.Those who owed the state after filing their 2009 taxes, owed a little bit extra thanks to Stricklands tax freeze. Stricklands decision cost a family of four earning $60,000 a year about $78 last year.Strickland prides himself on having made tough decisions in rough economic times. One of those decisions was postponing the income tax cut which meant taking money out of the pockets of Ohioans.But while the freeze is expected to be lifted next year, there are no guarantees that will happen in what is still a rough economic landscape for Ohio. And state taxpayers, who had to pay more in income taxes than what had been promised, may continue to pay at the higher rate.We rate Kasichs statement Mostly True.Comment on this item.

Did Clint Eastwood Say, 'I Love When People Call Trump Stupid'?

["Attaching a celebrity's name to a piece of text is one way to help it go viral. "]

In December 2019, an opinion piece supposedly written by actor/director Clint Eastwood that began "I love it when people call Trump stupid" started going viral on social media: viral Had to share from Clint Eastwood I love when people call Trump Stupid.. You mean the multi-billionaire who kicked every Democrats butt, buried 16 career Republican politicians, and continues to make fools out of once reputable news organizations ... You mean the guy who won the presidency?You mean the guy with the super model wife?You mean the guy whose words alone put a massive slow down on illegal border crossings?You mean the guy whose mere presence made the stock market smash its previous records?You mean the guy who created 1 million jobs in his first 7 months in office?Are you sure you even know what it is you're resisting? Are you sure you back a party that enables the decimation of every core principal of Christianity? Are you sure you back a party that voted 100% against the abolition of slavery?Are you sure you really take a politician like Maxine Waters seriously? Are you sure you don't see anything wrong with someone who has a 40 yr career as a public servant living in a $4.5 mansion representing a district she doesn't even live in? Are you sure you see nothing wrong or peculiar about Hillary Clinton a woman being involved in politics for the last 30 yrs having a net worth of $240 million? Are you sure you're not just basing your opinion on hatred spewed by a crooked paid for media platform? Could you even tell me 5 things the Democratic Party has done to improve you're day to day prosperity as a hard working American citizen?Probably not.. Do you realize the debacle you are sending your children into once they become adults by continuing to support a political party that has done nothing for the poor except kept them poor, gave them free abortions, and a few hundred a month to keep food in their fridge? The prosperity and safety of its citizens is job one of your government.Get with the program.Everyone else has horribly failed you!Smarten up and take a position for the sake of your children.I promise you a country full of illegal immigrants, abortions, $15 an hour jobs, and non-gender specific people aren't gonna make your country and life any more prosperous. Rosie, Madonna, Katy Perry, and Robert Deniro are not just like you. They don't have to live through the real world day to day disparity of an average American. Men don't hate women, white people don't hate black people, and Donald Trump is not a racist.Stop allowing yourself to be brainwashed by a party that has continuously failed you.Be about your prosperity, your safety, your children, and an America First mindset. Dump these crooked politicians that have stunted your growth.Dump these crooked politicians that have stunted your children's growth.Toughen up, take a stand, and act like a proud American. See the spirit of Trump supporting and freedom loving Americans and just imagine where we could be as a country if everyone had the same priorities. This opinion piece was not written by Eastwood. It is actually a near-verbatim copy of a letter written by New Hampshire state Rep. Fred Doucette to the editor of the Eagle Tribune in September 2019. The original letter was entitled "Dont be brainwashed by what the Democrats tell you." Eagle Tribune The confusion over who penned this piece likely started in November 2019 after the Massachusetts Republican Party posted Doucette's letter to its Facebook page alongside an image of Eastwood: Massachusetts Republican Party It should also be noted that the Massachusetts Republican Party's Facebook post contained a second quote ostensibly uttered by Eastwood: "If Congress really gave a rat's ass about the American people they would resign." We took a brief look at this quote, too, and we were unable to trace it back to Eastwood. This isn't the first time Eastwood's name has been invoked in an attempt to spread a pro-Trump message. Eastwood, who has supported conservative causes and candidates, also did not write an essay explaining why he "stick(s) my neck out for Trump." did not write an essay

['stock market']

False

In December 2019, an opinion piece supposedly written by actor/director Clint Eastwood that began "I love it when people call Trump stupid" started going viral on social media: This opinion piece was not written by Eastwood. It is actually a near-verbatim copy of a letter written by New Hampshire state Rep. Fred Doucette to the editor of the Eagle Tribune in September 2019. The original letter was entitled "Dont be brainwashed by what the Democrats tell you."The confusion over who penned this piece likely started in November 2019 after the Massachusetts Republican Party posted Doucette's letter to its Facebook page alongside an image of Eastwood:This isn't the first time Eastwood's name has been invoked in an attempt to spread a pro-Trump message. Eastwood, who has supported conservative causes and candidates, also did not write an essay explaining why he "stick(s) my neck out for Trump."

Canada provides financial assistance to immigrant polygamists in the form of 'start-up money'?

['An anti-immigrant image makes a host of false accusations about benefits available to Muslim refugees in Canada.']

In January 2017, an image macro circulated via Facebook targeting Muslim refugees in Canada by misstating the nature of several benefits available to them. The misleading nature of the macro begins with the suggestion that a smiling gentleman depicted in the image actually entered Canada with "two wives and six children," even though this photograph has been used by various "funny pictures" websites for several years. The "two wives" claim appears to play off reports of Muslim male immigrants secretly practicing polygamy, even though the practice of having more than one spouse at a time is illegal in Canada. The Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that law in a November 2011 ruling involving a non-Muslim polygamous sect. According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, a federal agency that assists both immigrants and refugees, that law is taken into account during the immigration process. The agency stated: "Polygamy is illegal in Canada, and therefore multiple marriages are not recognized under Canada's immigration laws." This means that a permanent resident or Canadian citizen can only immigrate with one spouse after having dissolved other marriages to convert their polygamous marriage to a monogamous one. Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has advised the United Nations Refugee Agency that individuals in a polygamous marriage should not be referred for resettlement to Canada. Additionally, IRCC officers assess privately sponsored refugee cases against Canada's immigration laws, including monogamous marriage requirements. Therefore, individuals practicing polygamy would be inadmissible to Canada. The reference to "privately sponsored refugees" concerns a separate program, though Syrian and Iraqi refugees are currently exempt from having to show documentation recognizing them as such. Regarding the claim of a "government-owned townhouse" and "a three-bedroom government-owned apartment," the agency stated: "The government does not own apartments or townhouses which are then given to resettled refugees." Immigration officials also provided examples of regional average payments for refugees and their families distributed through the Resettlement Assistance Program (RAP), which can be seen below: The agency explained: "Resettlement support normally includes a one-time start-up payment to assist the refugees in establishing a household in Canada, as well as monthly income support to help them get through their first year in Canada." Monthly support is provided to cover the costs of food and incidentals, shelter, and transportation. This amount varies depending on family size and is guided by the prevailing provincial social assistance rates in the province where the refugee(s) reside. Income support for most resettled refugees is provided for their first year in Canada by the federal government, private sponsors, or a mix of both. When income support ends, it is common for some refugees in need to transition to provincial or territorial social assistance support. The program also provides referrals to agencies in the country's various provinces that can help them acclimate after emigrating. According to the agency, among other things, these service provider organizations help newcomers find and retain employment, including referrals to assess foreign credentials. They also offer free language assessment and training to help newcomers contribute to the economy. Support services, including child care, transportation assistance, translation, interpretation, crisis counseling, and provisions for disabilities, are offered across the Settlement program to enable access to direct settlement services. The reference to immigrants being given "health cards" is a possible allusion to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP), which provides "limited, temporary coverage of health-care benefits" to refugees until they qualify for the country's public healthcare system, which is administered through provincial and territorial governments and not funded by the federal government. Immigration officials noted that as of April 1, 2016, IFHP beneficiaries are also eligible for urgent dental care (meaning "conditions involving pain, infection, or trauma") and limited vision care. As noted above, the benefits payments distributed to refugees do cover the cost of buying food, but the macro's statement regarding "access to a halal-only food bank" misleadingly presents that as another government service. In reality, those services are often operated by private organizations such as the Canadian Muslim Women's Institute (CMWI). We were unable to get in touch with CMWI for more information prior to publication, but the group's president, Yasmin Ali, explained the circumstances facing many of the people they help in a September 2016 interview: "When [refugees] come here, yes, they are given help by the government, but they have to start afresh. They are given some basic furniture, but they have to buy every single thing to equip themselves in a home, from a broom to pots and pans to sheets to every single thing, so the money doesn't stretch very far. With the kids going to school and needing clothing and school supplies, the extra food that they can get through Winnipeg Harvest is a good help to free up some money so they can actually access other necessities, pay other bills, and get other things that they need." The macro closes by stating that "voicing your opinion" could open people up to hate speech charges. In reality, the country's anti-hate laws do not address just general "opinions," but hate speech: Under section 318, everyone who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an offence punishable by up to five years imprisonment. The term genocide is defined to mean killing members of an identifiable group or deliberately inflicting on an identifiable group conditions of life calculated to bring about the group's physical destruction. Section 318(4) of the Criminal Code defines an identifiable group as any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation. No prosecution under this provision can be undertaken without the consent of the provincial Attorney General. Under section 319(1) of the Criminal Code, everyone who, by communicating statements in a public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of an indictable offence punishable by up to two years imprisonment or of a summary conviction offence. Section 319(2) makes it an offence to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group. Section 319(7) defines communicating to include communicating by telephone, broadcasting, or other audible or visible means. Public place is defined to include any place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, express or implied. Statements include words spoken or written or recorded electronically, electromagnetically, or otherwise, and also include gestures, signs, or other visible representations. IRCC also provided the following statement: "The ongoing conflict in Syria has triggered the worst humanitarian crisis in the world today. The Government of Canada remains committed to upholding its humanitarian tradition to resettle refugees and offer protection to those in need. Canada has a long and proud tradition of providing protection to those who need it the most by providing refuge to the world's most vulnerable people and has welcomed generations of newcomers who have helped us build our society, culture, and economy in long-lasting and enduring ways. Immigration from all streams provides significant benefits to Canada and to the immigrants who have come here to build their new lives. When we come together to welcome and integrate newcomers, it strengthens our communities and contributes to our country's success—it helps build our society, culture, and economy in long-lasting and enduring ways." The agency also noted that, according to preliminary findings, 53 percent of privately-sponsored adult refugees living outside of Quebec by March 1, 2016, had already found employment. IRCC stated that the employment rate for adult refugees taking part in government assistance programs outside of the same province was around 10 percent, which it attributed to "substantially lower language skills."

['economy']

False

In January 2017, an image macro circulated via Facebook taking aim at Muslim refugees in Canada by misstating the nature of several benefits available to them. The misleading nature of the macro begins with suggestion that a smiling gentleman depicted in the image actually entered Canada with "two wives and six children," even though this photograph has actually been used by various "funny pictures" web sites for several years.The "two wives" claim appears to play off of reports of Muslim male immigrants secretly practicing polygamy, even though the practice of having more than one spouse at a time is illegal in Canada. The Supreme Court of British Columbia upheld that law in a November 2011 ruling involving a non-Muslim polygamous sect.According to Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, a federal agency that helps both immigrants and refugees, that law is taken into account during the immigration process.Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada (IRCC) has advised the [United Nations Refugee Agency] that individuals in a polygamous marriage should not be referred for resettlement to Canada. As well, IRCC officers assess privately sponsored refugee cases against Canadas immigration laws, including monogamous marriage requirements. Therefore, individuals practising polygamy would be inadmissible to Canada.The reference to "privately sponsored refugees" concerns a separate program, though Syrian and Iraqi refugees are currently exempt from having to show documentation recognizing them as such. Regarding the claim of a "government-owned townhouse" and "a three bedroom government-owned apartment," the agency said:The program also provides referrals to agencies in the country's various provinces who can help them acclimate themselves after emigrating. According to the agency:The reference to immigrants' being given "health cards" is a possible allusion to the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) which provides "limited, temporary coverage of health-care benefits" to refugees until they qualify for the country's public healthcare system, which is administered through provincial and territorial governments and not funded by the federal government.As noted above, the benefits payments distributed to refugees do cover the cost of buying foods, but the macro's statement regarding "access to a halal-only food bank" misleadingly presents that as another government service. In reality, those services are often operated by private organizations such as the Canadian Muslim Women's Institute, or CMWI. We were unable to get in touch with CMWI for more information prior to publication, but the group's president, Yasmin Ali, explained the circumstances facing many of the people they help in a September 2016 interview:The macro closes by stating that "voicing your opinion" could open people up to hate speech charges. In reality, the country's anti-hate laws do not address just general "opinions," but hate speech:

Austin is burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation.

[]

An activist expressed elation after Austin voters rejected a $1 billion rail-and-roads proposition, stating that the rail component of the plan would have been a financial headache. Jim Skaggs, founder of Citizens Against Rail Taxes, told the Austin Monitor for a Nov. 5, 2014, news story that the rail costs would have been imposed on a community already burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation. Mark Nathan, a consultant for Let's Go Austin, which advocated for the proposition, asked us to verify Skaggs' claim. To our inquiry, Skaggs said by email that he believes he learned of Austin's dubious status from an Austin Business Journal story. "I do not have time to research it at the moment," Skaggs wrote on Nov. 5, 2014. City spokeswoman Melissa Alvarado said by email that the city does not track taxes in other jurisdictions. Alvarado also pointed us to a city chart showing its property tax rate mostly sliding from 1993 through 2009 and increasing or holding steady since: Source: Austin, Texas, Approved Budget 2013-14, Volume 1, page 19 (downloaded Nov. 24, 2014). Alvarado continued, "Please keep in mind the city is only one taxing jurisdiction. There's also the county, school district, health district, and more, depending on where exactly someone lives." She also noted that appraisals are a factor for taxes, not just the tax rate, and mentioned that the 2015 tax rate is the same as the 2014 rate. Indeed, surging property values are a driver of local government revenues, as the Austin American-Statesman has noted; an April 2014 news story quoted Travis County's chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, stating that taxable residential values—a home's market value minus property-tax exemptions—were up an average of 8 percent for 2014. Changes in those values, the story said, influence government spending plans. Our search for a breakdown of changes in taxes among U.S. cities led us to analyst James Quintero of the conservative-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, who pointed out by email that since 2008, according to a graph in the city of Austin's proposed fiscal 2015 budget, Austin residents have experienced a larger increase in their share of income paid in city property taxes than residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, or Houston. Specifically, Quintero said, the percentage of median family income spent on property tax bills for median-value homes in the Austin area represented a little less than 1.1 percent in fiscal 2008. In fiscal 2014, that figure had increased to just under 1.5 percent, representing an increase of 0.4 percent. The other major Texas cities demonstrated smaller increases over the same period. Skaggs claimed that Austin's tax increases were the highest among major cities nationally. We turned to Beverly Kerr, lead researcher for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, who sifted through information compiled by the Cambridge, Mass.-based Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. The institute, which focuses on property valuation and taxation policy, urban planning and development, land economics, and property rights, annually issues a 50-state property-tax comparison study. Kerr, drawing from the latest study issued in March 2014 by the center and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, emailed us charts indicating that numerous cities had significant property tax hikes in recent years and that, by one measure, Austin ranked close to No. 1 nationally in its increases compared with the most populous cities. One institute analysis looked at how much revenue per resident different cities have taken in. Our takeaways: From 2006 to 2011, per-person property tax revenue collected in Austin by all local government units (including school districts, the city, and the county) decreased by 4 percent, as measured in constant 2011 dollars. However, per-person revenue from city property taxes alone increased by 6 percent; Austin ranked 35th among the 50 largest cities for that rate of increase. Higher rates of increase were recorded by cities including Philadelphia, Houston, Dallas, New York, San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, and Chicago, which experienced a 60 percent spike in per-person property tax revenue. Over a longer span, from 2001 to 2011, Austin ranked 27th nationally for its 26 percent increase in per-person revenue from city property taxes. The Texas capital was outpaced in percentage growth by cities including San Antonio, Houston, Dallas, Fort Worth, New York, and Los Angeles. Austin experienced a 2 percent increase in per-person revenue from all taxes from 2006 to 2011, ranking 25th in this regard. Its increase trailed hikes occurring in the more populous cities of San Jose, Dallas, Houston, Philadelphia, and Los Angeles. Another institute breakdown highlighted by Kerr shows Austin ranking among cities with the greatest increases in taxes on a median-valued home. Our snapshots: From 2009 to 2013, Austin's effective tax rate on a median-priced home increased from 1.93 percent to 2.22 percent; that bump amounted to the 11th-greatest increase (0.29 points) among the 50 biggest cities. As of that year, Phoenix, Philadelphia, Jacksonville, and Chicago were the more populous cities than Austin that ranked higher by this indicator. In this instance, the effective rate is not the rate by which a government unit can generate the revenue it raised the year before. Rather, the study defines the effective rate as the total tax on a median-priced home divided by its total value, which takes into account variations in assessment rates and value exemptions across localities. While Austin's effective tax rate in 2013 was ahead of its rate in 2009, it was less than the 2.44 percent rate of 2005. In 2013, property taxes on a median-value Austin home ran $1,049 ahead of those taxes on such a home in 2005, up nearly 26 percent. That percentage increase placed Austin 10th nationally in this regard, behind Portland, San Jose, Denver, Philadelphia, Oklahoma City, Tulsa, Albuquerque, Columbus, and Cleveland—and only San Jose, Portland, and Philadelphia had greater dollar increases than Austin. Among the 15 largest cities at that time, Austin ranked third behind San Jose and Philadelphia for the percent change in net tax from 2005 to 2013. Over a shorter period, from 2009 to 2013, Phoenix, San Jose, San Francisco, San Diego, New York, and Jacksonville experienced greater increases in net property tax on a median-value home. (Dallas, Chicago, San Antonio, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Houston, and Indianapolis had smaller increases.) Our ruling: Skaggs claimed that Austin has the fastest-growing tax increases of any major U.S. city. Among the nation's largest cities, Austin appears to have had the third-fastest growth in its property-tax bite on a median-valued home from 2005 to 2013. It seems reasonable to speculate that local taxpayers feel the pinch. However, Skaggs did not provide, nor did we find, evidence of Austin ranking first in tax growth among the country's major cities. We rate the statement False.

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

False

Jim Skaggs, founder ofCitizens Against Rail Taxes, told the Austin Monitor for a Nov. 5, 2014,news story, that the rail costs would have been imposed on a community already burdened by the fastest-growing tax increases of any major city in the nation.We hunted unsuccessfully for such a story while to our nudge, a city spokeswoman, Melissa Alvarado,said by emailthe city does not track taxes in other jurisdictions. Alvarado also pointed us to a city chart showing its property tax rate mostly sliding from 1993 through 2009 and increasing or holding steady since:Source:Austin, Texas, Approved Budget 2013-14, Volume 1,page 19 (downloaded Nov. 24, 2014)Indeed, surging property values are a driver in local government revenues, theAustin American-Statesmanhas noted; of late, an April 2014 news story quoted Travis Countys chief appraiser, Marya Crigler, saying taxable residential values a homes market value minus property-tax exemptions were up an average of 8 percent for 2014. Changes in those values, the story said, influence government spending plans.Our search for a breakdown of changes in taxes among U.S. cities led us to analyst James Quintero of the conservative-leaning Texas Public Policy Foundation, who pointed out by email that since 2008, according to a graph in the city of Austinsproposed fiscal 2015 budget, Austin residents have experienced a bigger burst in their share of income paid in city property taxes than residents of Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio or Houston.We turned to Beverly Kerr, lead researcher for the Greater Austin Chamber of Commerce, who sifted information compiled by the Cambridge, Mass.-basedLincoln Institute of Land Policy. The institute, which focuses on property valuation and taxation policy, urban planning and development, land economics and property rights, annually issues a 50-state property-tax comparison study.Kerr, drawing fromthe latest study, issued in March 2014 by the center and the Minnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, emailed us charts indicating numerous cities had significant property tax hikes in recent years and also that by one gauge, Austin ranked close to No. 1 nationally in its increases compared with the most-populous cities.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Does China Own DreamWorks?

['A factless Facebook post urged people to "Fact Check This!", so...']

In February 2021, a meme circulated on Facebook claiming that "Communist China" owned DreamWorks: Since the meme urged people to "FACT CHECK THIS!", we did, and it appears that these claims are made up out of whole cloth. DreamWorks Animation LLC is an American animation studio best known for making movies such as "Shrek" and "How to Train Your Dragon." It started as a division of the movie production company DreamWorks Pictures founded in 1994 by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen. In 2016, the company was acquired by NBCUniversal, a division of Comcast Corporation, in a deal worth about $3.8 billion. founded in 1994 Variety reported at the time: reported NBCUniversal has set a deal to buy DreamWorks Animation for $3.8 billion in cash, giving the Comcast-owned media conglomerate added heft in its effort to compete with rivals like Disney, Time Warner and Viacom, all of which cater more directly to kid-and family audiences. [...] "DreamWorks will help us grow our film, television, theme parks and consumer products businesses for years to come, said NBCUniversal CEO Steve Burke. We are fortunate to have Illumination founder Chris Meledandri to help guide the growth of the DreamWorks Animation business in the future. NBCUniversal and Comcast are both American companies. We're not entirely sure where the claim that "China owns DreamWorks" originated, but it might be based on some confusion over the animation company Pearl Studios, which was formerly known as Oriental DreamWorks. While these companies do have a connection, they are two separate entities. Oriental DreamWorks was started as a joint Chinese-American venture in 2012 between Chinese investment companies and DreamWorks Animation. When Comcast acquired DreamWorks in 2016, they noted that DreamWorks Animation owned a 45% stake in Oriental Dreamworks: acquired DWA is also the majority owner of AwesomenessTV, a leading video destination for Generation Z and Millennial audiences, and also owns 45% of Oriental DreamWorks, a world-class animation studio in China that produces family entertainment for both Chinese and global audiences. Two years after this deal in 2018, the Chinese investment firm CMC Capital Partners took full ownership of Oriental DreamWorks and relaunched it as Pearl Studio. Deadline reported: reported A consortium led by Li Ruigangs CMC Capital Partners has taken full ownership of Shanghai-based animation studio Oriental DreamWorks, relaunching it as Pearl Studio. Universal, which inherited 45% of the joint venture when parent Comcast acquired DreamWorks Animation in 2016, had been looking to offload its interests. Financial terms were not disclosed. The newly-christened studio will be led by CEO Frank Zhu and Chief Creative Officer Peilin Chou. The senior executive team also includes Head of Studio Dagan Potter, Head of Ancillary Business PC Xu and Head of Operation Cindy Zhou. Oriental DreamWorks, which launched in 2012, is the studio behind Kung Fu Panda 3 which was the first official U.S.-China animated co-production and one of the highest-grossing animated films ever when it released in the Middle Kingdom in 2016. In September last year, the studio unveiled a slate of key development projects. A Chinese investment firm (not the Chinese government) owns an animation studio called Pearl Studio that originated as a Chinese-American joint venture called Oriental DreamWorks. In no way can this be construed as the Chinese Communist Party's owning the American company DreamWorks.

['investment']

False

DreamWorks Animation LLC is an American animation studio best known for making movies such as "Shrek" and "How to Train Your Dragon." It started as a division of the movie production company DreamWorks Pictures founded in 1994 by Steven Spielberg, Jeffrey Katzenberg, and David Geffen. In 2016, the company was acquired by NBCUniversal, a division of Comcast Corporation, in a deal worth about $3.8 billion.Variety reported at the time:We're not entirely sure where the claim that "China owns DreamWorks" originated, but it might be based on some confusion over the animation company Pearl Studios, which was formerly known as Oriental DreamWorks. While these companies do have a connection, they are two separate entities. Oriental DreamWorks was started as a joint Chinese-American venture in 2012 between Chinese investment companies and DreamWorks Animation. When Comcast acquired DreamWorks in 2016, they noted that DreamWorks Animation owned a 45% stake in Oriental Dreamworks:Two years after this deal in 2018, the Chinese investment firm CMC Capital Partners took full ownership of Oriental DreamWorks and relaunched it as Pearl Studio. Deadline reported:

Did Tucker Carlson's Mom Leave Him $1 in Her Will?

["The will, which surfaced amid a three-generation inheritance dispute, did not prevent Carlson from inheriting portions of his mom's estate."]

Following the unexpected firing of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson on April 25, 2023, a flurry of claims, both old and new, about the conservative commentator went viral. One long-standing assertion regarding Carlson is that his mother left him only $1 in her will. The claim stems from documents produced amid a multi-generational legal dispute over the inheritance of mineral rights that had been left to Lombardi by her mother. Here, Snopes explains the controversy and the basis for rating the claim. Tucker Carlson's parents were Richard Carlson and Lisa Lombardi. Lombardi, an artist described by contemporaries as a "bohemian," came from several wealthy "pioneer families," including a man, Henry Miller, dubbed "The Cattle King." At the time of Miller's death in 1916, he owned 3 million acres of rangeland in California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada. Her family's ownership of this vast expanse declined over the years, but the family retained much of the land's mineral rights. In some cases, real estate transactions allow a person to sell land but retain rights to any profits generated by mining or drilling on the land. Lombardi inherited a portion of her family's mineral rights, which paid royalties in 1993, when her mother died. Carlson's dad and Lombardi divorced in 1976, when Tucker was 6 years old. The elder Carlson was awarded full custody of both of their children, and Carlson had little to no relationship with his mom after the divorce. As reported in a profile of Carlson published by Insider, Lombardi "disappeared from her sons' lives," according to Carlson's childhood friends. Carlson was later adopted by his father's second wife, Swanson frozen chicken heiress Patricia Swanson. Lombardi died on Oct. 14, 2011, while abroad in France with her husband. Just shy of a year later, a lawyer for Tucker and his brother Buckley Carlson filed a petition in Kern County, California, for a court to rule on the succession of property owned by Lombardi. That court was entitled to rule on such a matter due to Lombardi's ownership of mineral rights in that county. With the agreement of Lombardi's surviving husband, Michael Vaughan, the court finalized a settlement ruling that Lombardi died "intestate" (without a will), and that property with mineral interests and royalty shares totaling about $129,684 would be distributed evenly between Vaughan and the two Carlson brothers. That ruling went into effect in July 2013. After finding a handwritten will in 2013 leaving virtually all of her estate to Vaughan, however, Vaughan's family filed a petition in South Carolina, Lombardi's legal residence at the time of her death, to become the legal representative of Lombardi's estate and officially enter the will into probate. This handwritten document contains the instructions that Tucker and Buckley Carlson receive "one dollar each." The Carlsons initially objected to the admission of this will into the South Carolina probate case, describing it as a potential forgery. In addition to the instruction to give $1 to each of her estranged sons, the will also provided that Vaughan get all her property, including the aforementioned mineral rights. The Carlsons dropped their challenge to the will's admission in South Carolina probate court. Kern County ultimately ruled that the will, while legally valid, could not affect the past distribution of settlement funds due to California probate law. Copies of this will were included as exhibits in multiple attempts by Vaughan and other Lombardi family members to overrule the Kern County settlement based on several legal theories, including that the above will invalidated the previous settlement, that Lombardi never gained possession of some or all of the mineral rights in question, and that they were never part of her estate. This latter claim required lawyers for the estate of Lombardi's long-deceased mother to get involved in the dispute. Ultimately, Kern County denied these attempts, finding Vaughan bound by prior admissions in the original case and that the lack of timely admission of the will to the Kern County court was not the fault of the court system. In other words, the Carlson brothers received more than the $1 Lombardi's August 1995 will stipulated, and this decision has been affirmed several times. Just because the will did not affect the Kern County settlement does not mean the document is not valid or not Lombardi's authentic wishes. According to court testimony, Isabell Vaughan, one of Michael's daughters from a prior marriage, "discovered Lisa's handwritten will in Lisa's painting room and office" in the fall of 2013. As described in an Insider profile, "Lisa was basically sort of a hippie and a free spirit," said one attorney who represented the Vaughan family and recalled having conversations about the case. "She was very liberal and she did not agree with Tucker's politics. But she stuck the will in the book, everyone forgot about it, and then she passed away." The Carlsons originally challenged the admission of that will in the South Carolina probate case, arguing that the will "was a forgery" and that Vaughan had already signed documents in Kern County indicating Lombardi left no will. Vaughan's lawyers hired a handwriting expert who concluded it was "highly probable" that the will was authored by Lombardi. The Carlsons voluntarily dropped their objection. This left the admission of the will in Lombardi's South Carolina probate case without any objections or challenges. Legally speaking, then, that handwritten document is the last will and testament of Lombardi, and it effectively cut her estranged sons out of her inheritance. For that reason, the claim at issue in this story is true. In practice, however, the Kern County challenges made by Vaughan and their subsequent appeals—some of which were based in part on that will—have all been denied, and the Carlson brothers inherited a third of their estranged mother's mineral interests in spite of it.

['funds']

True

Following the unexpected firing of Fox News personality Tucker Carlson on April 25, 2023, a flurry of claims both old and new about the conservative commentator went viral. One long-standing assertion regarding Carson is that his mother left him only $1 in her will:Tucker Carlson's parents were Richard Carlson and Lisa Lombardi. Lombardi, an artist described by contemporaries as a "bohemian," came from several wealthy "pioneer families," including a man, Henry Miller, dubbed the "The Cattle King." At the time of Miller's death in 1916, he owned 3 million acres of rangeland in California, Oregon, Washington, and Nevada.Her family's ownership of this vast expanse declined over the years, but the family retained much of the land's mineral rights. In some cases, real estate transactions allow a person to sell land but retain rights to any profits generated by mining or drilling on the land. Lombardi inherited a portion of her family's mineral rights, which pay or paid out royalties in 1993, when her mother died.Carlson's dad and Lombardi divorced in 1976, when Tucker was 6 years old. The elder Carlson was awarded full custody of both of their children, and Carlson had little to no relationship with his mom after the divorce. As reported ina profile of Carlson published by Insider, Lombardi "disappeared from her sons' lives," according to Carlson's childhood friends.Carlson was later adopted by his father's second wife Swanson frozen chicken heiress Patricia Swanson.Lombardi died on Oct. 14, 2011, while abroad in France with her husband. Just shy of a year later, a lawyer for Tucker and brother Buckley Carlson filed a petition in Kern County, California, for a court to rule on the succession of property owned by Lombardi. That court was entitled to rule on such a matter due to Lombardi's ownership of mineral rights in that county.With the agreement of Lombardi's surviving husband, Michael Vaughan, the court finalized a settlement ruling that Lombardi died "intestate" (without a will), and that property with mineral interests and royalty shares totaling about $129,684 would be distributed evenly between Vaughan and the two Carlson brothers. That ruling went into effect in July 2013.After finding a hand-written will in 2013 leaving virtually all of her estate to Vaughn, however, Vaughan's family filed a petition in South Carolina, Lombardi's legal residence at the time of her death, to become the legal representative of Lombardi's estate and officially enter the will into probate. This handwritten document contains the instructions that Tucker and Buckley Carlson receive "one dollar each" at issue in viral claims:The Carlsons at firstobjected to the admission of this will into the South Carolina probate case, describing it as a potential forgery. In addition to instruction to give $1 to each of her estranged sons, the will also provided that Vaughan get all her property, including the aforementioned mineral rights:The Carlsons dropped their challenge to the will's admission in South Carolina probate court. Kern County ultimately ruled that the will, while legally valid, could not affect the past distribution of settlement funds due to California probate law.In other words, the Carlson brothers got more than the $1 Lombardi's August 1995 will stipulated, and this decision has been affirmed several times.Just because the will did not affect the Kern County settlement does not mean the document is not valid or not Lombardi's authentic wishes. According to court testimony, Isabell Vaughan, one of Michael's daughters from a prior marriage, "discovered Lisa's handwritten will in Lisa's painting room and office" in the Fall of 2013. As described in an Insider profile:The Carlsons originally challenged the admission of that will in the South Carolina probate case, arguing that the will "was a forgery" and that Vaughn had already signed documents in Kern County indicating Lombardi left no will. Vaughn's lawyers hired a handwriting expert who concluded it was "highly probable" that the will was authored by Lombardi. The Carlsons voluntarily dropped their objection.In practice, however, the Kern County challenges made by Vaughan and their subsequent appeals some of which were based in part on that will have all been denied, and the Carlson brothers inherited a third of their estranged mothers mineral interests in spite of it.

A $15-per-hour minimum wage would raise the price of a Taco Bell burrito to $38.

['Taco Bell said some of its locations have already adapted to $15-an-hour minimum wages at city and county levels.', 'Taco Bell burrito prices are nowhere close to $38 in those places., Four economists described the warning about $38 Taco Bell burrito prices as far from accurate and not supported by evidence., Rachels tweet making the claim appears to have been deleted.']

President Joe Bidens proposal for an$1.9 trillion economic rescue packagecalls for more than doubling the federal minimum wage, which was last raised over a decade ago. The plan has stirred up online chatter about the impact of a proposed $15-an-hour federal rate, with one conservative commentator warning that it would send prices soaring. If you want $15 minimum wage, dont complain when your Taco Bell order costs $38 for a burrito, said Jordan Rachel, a Turning Point USA contributor,in a Jan. 16 tweet. Business groups have long opposed sharply higher minimum wages on the grounds that they would hurt employment and raise consumer prices. But $38 for a burrito? That seemed like a hefty price at any restaurant, let alone a fast-food chain like Taco Bell, which still has several $1 items on its value menu. So PolitiFact decided to put Rachels claim to the Truth-O-Meter. We reached out to Turning Point USA and a spokesperson for Charlie Kirk, the organizations founder, about Rachels claim, and we got no response. Soon after we sent our inquiries, Rachels tweet about Taco Bell disappeared from the platform. We did, however, hear back from Taco Bell. The company, part of the Yum! Brands family of restaurant chains, told us that it already does business in places where local laws set a higher wage than the $7.25-an-hour federal minimum. In those places, burrito prices havent skyrocketed. Taco Bell and our franchisees have already adapted to many minimum wage increases on a local level, and we are committed to maintaining our leadership in value on a national level, Taco Bell said in a statement to PolitiFact. For example, at our company-owned restaurants in New York City, where the minimum wage is $15 an hour, our Bean Burrito is $1.89 plus tax and Crunchwrap Supreme is $4.49 plus tax. Several economists we talked to described Rachels warning about $38 burritos as far from accurate and easily countered by evidence. A price of $38 is clearly absurd, said Orley Ashenfelter, a Princeton University economist who has used the price of McDonalds Big Mac sandwiches to compare wages worldwide. The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 per hour since 2009, but 29 states and Washington, D.C., haveminimum wagesabove the federal level, according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures. Some cities and counties have already bumped their rates to $15 or higher. And arecent reportfrom the National Employment Law Project said that by the end of 2021, 40 more cities and counties will have a minimum wage at or above $15 than at the end of 2020. Efforts to increase the federal rate haveacceleratedin recent years. The House in 1999 voted to raise the hourly minimum to $15 by 2025 the bill stalled in the Senate and Bidenpromisedduring his campaign to seek a $15 floor. That pledge made its way into Bidens coronavirus relief proposal released Jan. 14. On Jan. 15, some 1,000 fast-food workerswent on striketo protest low wages. They and other proponents of raising the minimum wage say doing so would lift low-income workers out of poverty, while opponents warn of hamstringing businesses and forcing layoffs. Prices at Taco Bell restaurants and other chains vary by location. And experts said it would be reasonable to expect increased prices with a bump to a $15 federal minimum wage. But Rachels warning of a $38 burrito isnt supported by evidence. I can think of no economic justification that would lead to a prediction anywhere close to the estimate of a $38 Taco Bell burrito, said Steven Fazzari, a professor of economics at Washington University in St. Louis. A simple way to gauge the potential impact on prices is to look at places where the minimum wage is already $15 or more per hour, experts said. Plenty of cities work as benchmarks, including New York,Washington, D.C., Seattle and San Francisco. In San Francisco, for example, the minimum wage is $16.07 per hour. But the burrito prices there are not much different from cities with lower minimum wages. Sometimes theyre the same. Some of Taco Bells most expensive burritos show no price difference whatsoever between places with very high and very low minimum wages, said Gary Burtless, a senior fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, who called Rachels claim easily disproven. Burtless compared prices for two different types of burritos at San Franciscos710 Third St. Taco Bellto prices for the same burritos at aTaco Bellin Alexandria, Va., where the states minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, equal to the federal minimum. In Alexandria, a Bean Burrito goes for $1.29, while a Burrito Supreme costs $4.19. At the San Francisco location, a Bean Burrito sells for $1.99, and a Burrito Supreme costs $4.19. Two screenshots from Taco Bell's website show the prices listed for a Bean Burrito and a Burrito Supreme at Taco Bell locations in Alexandria, Va., and San Francisco, on Jan. 20, 2021. The most expensive burrito on the menu, the Crunchwrap Supreme, costs $4.19 in Alexandria and $4.49 in San Francisco, a difference of about 7%. We find absolutely no evidence that a higher minimum wage will boost Taco Bell burrito prices by anything that comes remotely close to 807%, the price increase implicitly predicted by Jordan Rachel, Burtless said. Bryan Stuart, an assistant professor of economics at George Washington University, said burrito prices in major cities like New York City and San Francisco likely represent an upper bound on the average burrito price if the federal minimum wage goes to $15. Thats because the price of a Taco Bell burrito depends on more than just worker salaries. The price of burritos depends on the cost of land, taxes, etc., and many of these costs are higher in cities that have a minimum wage at or above $15, Stuart said. Ashenfelter, the Princeton economist, said labor costs represent between 20% and 30% of the final consumer price. He said new research of his, on McDonalds wages and Big Mac prices, estimated that a 10% increase in the minimum wage would raise Big Mac prices by 1.4%. That suggests that Taco Bell burritos could cost more in some places under Bidens proposal which would increase the federal minimum by more than 100% but nowhere near $38. Rachel said a $15-an-hour minimum wage would raise the price of a Taco Bell burrito to $38. This claim is countered by available evidence, including the current burrito prices at Taco Bell locations in cities and counties where a $15 minimum wage is in effect. Four economists characterized the claim as a far-off estimate at odds with economic theory. We rate Rachels statement False.

['Economy', 'Food', 'Pundits', 'Workers', 'PunditFact']

False

President Joe Bidens proposal for an$1.9 trillion economic rescue packagecalls for more than doubling the federal minimum wage, which was last raised over a decade ago.If you want $15 minimum wage, dont complain when your Taco Bell order costs $38 for a burrito, said Jordan Rachel, a Turning Point USA contributor,in a Jan. 16 tweet.The federal minimum wage has been stuck at $7.25 per hour since 2009, but 29 states and Washington, D.C., haveminimum wagesabove the federal level, according to theNational Conference of State Legislatures.Some cities and counties have already bumped their rates to $15 or higher. And arecent reportfrom the National Employment Law Project said that by the end of 2021, 40 more cities and counties will have a minimum wage at or above $15 than at the end of 2020.Efforts to increase the federal rate haveacceleratedin recent years. The House in 1999 voted to raise the hourly minimum to $15 by 2025 the bill stalled in the Senate and Bidenpromisedduring his campaign to seek a $15 floor. That pledge made its way into Bidens coronavirus relief proposal released Jan. 14.On Jan. 15, some 1,000 fast-food workerswent on striketo protest low wages. They and other proponents of raising the minimum wage say doing so would lift low-income workers out of poverty, while opponents warn of hamstringing businesses and forcing layoffs.Plenty of cities work as benchmarks, including New York,Washington, D.C., Seattle and San Francisco. In San Francisco, for example, the minimum wage is $16.07 per hour. But the burrito prices there are not much different from cities with lower minimum wages. Sometimes theyre the same.Burtless compared prices for two different types of burritos at San Franciscos710 Third St. Taco Bellto prices for the same burritos at aTaco Bellin Alexandria, Va., where the states minimum wage is currently $7.25 per hour, equal to the federal minimum.

Is Lululemon Recruiting 150 Ambassadors via Instagram?

['A viral post promising an ambassadorship with Lululemon in exchange for follows and shares on Instagram is a scam. ']

"If something sounds too good to be true, then it probably is," says the mantra of the fact-checking industry. In December 2018, a number of social media users came across a post promising a chance at an ambassadorship with the popular brand Lululemon. The post, shared by Instagram accounts such as @lulurecruitment.co (which has no affiliation with the real Lululemon), explained that anyone with 150 followers had a chance to obtain free clothes and gifts simply by sharing this advertisement with their friends on social media. This is not a genuine offer from Lululemon, and the accounts sharing this message are not affiliated with the brand. Lululemon's social media team has responded to a few queries about the scam with messages similar to the following: Responded FB User: "Is this legit? I am assuming no." Lululemon: "Hi Michelle, you've got it! Our accounts are verified with the blue check mark, and our ambassadors are chosen individually by our stores rather than via our social channels. This account has been flagged to our brand protection team. Let me know if you have more questions!" - Camilla. The non-existent ambassadorship was only offered to users with a minimum of 150 followers, which is a relatively low bar for any sort of social media position, especially for a well-known national brand such as Lululemon. This scam also required potential "ambassadors" to follow the fake Lululemon account and then share its post with their friends. This allowed the scammers to build a following and ensured that their dishonest message would be spread to a greater number of social media users. This Lululemon scam followed a strategy similar to other "like farming" social media schemes. Such fraudsters offer something of value (in this case, an ambassadorship) in exchange for social media engagement, which allows them to quickly build a following and then provides them the opportunity to sell the account to a third party. One way to avoid this type of scam is to double-check to make sure that a company-affiliated post actually originated with the brand's official social media accounts. Social media users should also keep in mind old adages such as "nothing in life is free" when they peruse the internet.

['share']

False

In December 2018, a number of social media users came across a post promising a chance at an ambassadorship with the popular brand Lululemon. The posting, which was shared by Instagram accounts such as @lulurecruitment.co (which has no affiliation with the real Lululemon) explained that anyone with 150 followers had a chance of obtaining free clothes and gift for simply sharing this advertisement with their friends on social media:Lululemon's social media team has responded to a few queries about the scam with messages similar to the following:This Lululemon scam followed a strategy similar to other "like farming" social media schemes. Such fraudsters offer something of value (in this case an ambassadorship) in exchange for social media engagement, which allows them to quickly build a following and then provides them the opportunity to sell the account to a third party.@lululemon can you confirm if this is real or fake? pic.twitter.com/gnp8g2sD2p Jason Davis (@Jasonnn93) December 13, 2018

The Milwaukee County executive can sell the public museum, the airport and the zoo -- all on his own, without County Board approval

[]

The two Milwaukee Democrats sparring in the race for Milwaukee County executive are both busy discussing the incumbent, Chris Abele. The millionaire philanthropist, elected in 2011 to succeed Scott Walker, is touting his accomplishments—claiming he balanced the county budget without raising taxes for five years in a row (Half True) and that 1 million route-miles have been added to the bus system without a fare increase (Mostly True). Meanwhile, the leading challenger, state Sen. Chris Larson, has cast Abele as out of touch—and too powerful. Larson, who was a member of the County Board of Supervisors before Abele took office, won election to the Senate in 2010 after defeating a Democratic incumbent. On the Nov. 22, 2015, episode of Upfront with Mike Gousha, Larson decried the power Abele has gained at the expense of the County Board, which is essentially moving to part-time status as a result of a 2014 voter referendum. With the referendum, which Abele supported, salaries for the 18 County Board supervisors will be cut in half following the April 2016 elections. In addition, the supervisors' health insurance will end, and no additional pension benefits will be accrued. Gousha asked Larson whether a full-time County Board is better than a part-time board. Larson answered by making a claim we want to check, as well as referencing rapper-producer Kanye West. "I do understand that there are a lot of people who don't like the County Board. I'd also understand that there are people who don't like Congress," Larson said. "The difference I have is that I don't think we should abolish Congress or abolish the legislative check and balance that we have in American-style democracy." Then Larson alluded to a recent change in state law that gives more power to the Milwaukee County executive, saying, "If anything, I think we've erred too far in giving all this power to one individual, including land sales. He has unilateral authority over the County Board—or the County Board has no oversight over land sales, including the museum, the airport, and the zoo. That's just scary to think what he could do with that." And to paraphrase Kanye West: "No one man should have all that power." So—though it's not likely—does the Milwaukee County executive have the power, on his own, to sell the Milwaukee Public Museum, General Mitchell International Airport, and the Milwaukee County Zoo, all without approval from the County Board? The law: In July 2015, while making final adjustments to the 2015-17 state budget, GOP lawmakers inserted a provision to eliminate the Milwaukee County Board's oversight of sales of county-owned properties that are not zoned for park use. County Board members made power-grab allegations against Abele, who, despite being a Democrat, has forged alliances with some Republicans. The budget provision helped clear the way for Abele to sell 10 acres of land that is envisioned as part of a downtown Milwaukee development coinciding with a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team. Now to Larson's claim. Under the change in state law, any sale of non-park land owned by Milwaukee County requires the approval of only one other person besides the county executive—either the elected county comptroller or a real estate expert who lives in the community where the land is located and who does not hold public office. That expert is appointed by the Milwaukee County Intergovernmental Cooperation Council, which is made up of elected representatives from the various cities and villages in the county. In other words, the County Board doesn't have a say, although the county executive alone couldn't sell non-park land, such as the museum, the airport, or the zoo. The county's top attorney, Corporation Counsel Paul Bargren, confirmed in a memo to the County Board that county-owned land that isn't zoned for parks can be sold without the board's approval. Specifically, the executive could lease, sell, or convey any non-park county property regardless of board policy and without board approval, he wrote. Either the comptroller or the appointed real estate expert would have to determine that the sale is in the best interests of the county. Bargren noted that counties are considered an arm of the state and that the state Legislature can delegate or remove powers from county boards in all 72 counties and can, as it did in this case, treat one county differently than the others. In effect, the Legislature has inserted itself in place of the Milwaukee County Board and, as a matter of county policy, has delegated the administration of land sales and contracts and procurement to the executive, his memo states. Our rating: Larson said the Milwaukee County executive can sell the public museum, the airport, and the zoo—all on his own, without County Board approval. A recent change in state law that applies only to Milwaukee County allows the executive to sell any county-owned land not zoned as park land without the approval of the County Board. However, such sales would need the approval of at least one other person—either the elected county comptroller or a real estate expert appointed by elected municipal officials who lives in the community where the land is located. We rate Larson's statement Mostly True. More on Milwaukee County: In Milwaukee County, juveniles arrested for car theft are sent immediately home because, under the point system in juvenile court regarding holding suspects, a stolen car gets zero points. Mostly False. In Context: Which black people did Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke call uneducated, lazy, and morally bankrupt?

['Animals', 'County Government', 'Legal Issues', 'State Budget', 'Transportation', 'Wisconsin']

True

The two Milwaukee Democrats sparring in the race for Milwaukee County executive are both busy talking about the incumbent,Chris Abele.The millionaire philanthropist,electedin 2011 to succeed Scott Walker, is touting his accomplishments -- claiming he balanced the county budget without raising taxes five years in a row (Half True), and that 1 million route-miles have been added to the bus system without a fare increase (Mostly True).Meanwhile, the leading challenger, state Sen.Chris Larson, has cast Abele as out of touch -- andtoo powerful. Larson, who was a member of the county Board of Supervisors before Abele took office, won election to the Senate in 2010 afterdefeatinga Democratic incumbent.On the Nov. 22, 2015 Upfront with Mike Gousha public affairsTV show, Larson decried the power Abele he has gained at the expense of the County Board, which is essentially moving to part-time status as a result of a 2014 voterreferendum.With the referendum, which Abele supported, salaries for the 18 County Boardsupervisorswill be cut in half following the April 2016elections. In addition, the supervisors health insurance will end and no additional pension benefits will be accrued.Larson answered by making a claim we want to check, as well as a reference to rapper-producerKanye West.In July 2015, while making final adjustments to the 2015-17 state budget, GOP lawmakersinserteda provision to eliminate the Milwaukee County Boards oversight of sales of county-owned properties that are not zoned for park use.County Board members made power-grab allegations against Abele who, despite being a Democrat, hasforged allianceswith some Republicans.The budget provisionhelpedclear the way for Abele tosell 10 acresof land that is envisioned as part of a downtown Milwaukee development coinciding with a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball team.Underthe changein state law, any sale of non-park land owned by Milwaukee County requires the approval of only one other person besides the county executive -- either the electedcounty comptrolleror a real estate expert who lives in the community where the land is located and who does not hold public office.The countys top attorney, Corporation Counsel Paul Bargren, confirmedin a memoto the County Board that county-owned land that isnt zoned for parks can be sold without the boards OK.In Milwaukee County, juveniles arrested for car theft get sent immediately home, because under the point system in juvenile court on holding suspects, a stolen car gets zero points.Mostly False.In Context: Which black people did Milwaukee County Sheriff David Clarke call uneducated, lazy and morally bankrupt?

Consider before you contribute!

['An article that compares the salaries of top executives of several large charitable organizations is mostly outdated and inaccurate.']

When deciding which charities to donate to, many people consider an important factor to be the "efficiency" of these organizations that is, what percentage of the monies taken in by a given charity goes to funding its mission rather than being eaten up by costs such as fundraising activities, salaries, and other administrative overhead. The e-mail reproduced above, which began circulating in 2005 and has been re-circulated every year since then around Christmastime, attempts to steer potential donors away from inefficient charities. Unfortunately, much of the information it presents was inaccurate back in 2005, and it has grown only more so in the years since then, resulting in a misleading and outdated view of various charities. We attempt to present accurate and up-to-date information about the named charities below. The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.) Charity Navigator GuideStar special report UNICEF United States Fund for UNICEF states 2010 2011 said United Way Worldwide reported World Vision World Vision Canada states: In our annual report to the Canada Revenue Agency, we publicly disclose information about executive compensation. In the interest of greater transparency to our donors, we have gone beyond our legal requirements by disclosing that our president, Michael Messenger, currently earns the top annual base salary of $215,000 plus a combination of taxable and non-taxable benefits. The presidents performance is subject to annual review by our Board of Directors, and his compensation is decided by them. World Vision Canada's (self-reported) efficiency is 81%, much higher than the 52% figure claimed above. BBB Goodwill Industries International Jim Gibbons compensation March of Dimes St. Jude parent Lions Clubs A 2011 addendum to the original message presented the following information: The American Legion National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Veterans of Foreign Wars National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Disabled American Veterans National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Military Order of Purple Hearts National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Vietnam Veterans Association National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary.The Wounded Warriors National Commander receives a $0.00 zero salary. These organizations with no salaries have donations going to help Veterans and their families and youth. According to the most recent available Form 990 filings, all of these statements are false and/or misleading (in large part because the National Commanders are not necessarily the top business executives of these organizations): Unfortunately, the six veterans-related charitable organizations mentioned above don't receive very high marks for efficiency (as determined by Charity Navigator, the BBB, or Form 990 information): <!--Additional information: America's Most Efficient Charities --> UNICEF USA. "CEO Salary Email." American Red Cross. "Red Cross Statement on Inaccurate Viral Email on Charity CEO Pay." 11 December 2012. United Way. "CEO Compensation FAQ." World Vision Canada. "Our Approach to Executive Compensation." Updated CEO names and salaries for several of the organizations listed.

['budget']

NEI

The following efficiency information is derived from the Charity Navigator web site, the GuideStar web site and Forbes magazine's November 2009 special report on the 200 Largest U.S. Charities. Salary information is taken from Schedule J (Compensation Information) of the various charities' IRS Form 990 filings, an annual reporting return that certain federally tax-exempt organizations must file with the IRS which provides information on the filing organization's mission, programs, and finances. (In the context of this article, the term "efficiency" refers to the percentage of total budget/expenses that each listed organization spends on providing charitable programs and services, while the term "compensation" or "pay" includes salary, one-time payments, and deferred compensation.)

The state's transportation department is currently burdened with a significant level of debt and has made debt repayments totaling over $700 million within the past two years.

[]

Infrastructure is one of Gov. Mike Parsons top priorities in the 100th legislative session, and some representatives have followed suit. House Budget Chairman Rep. Cody Smith, R-Carthage, presented a budget plan to fund road and bridge improvements throughout the state. Smith said his plan would fund the infrastructure improvements without raising taxes or accruing new debt. Smith wanted to do this by appropriating funds from general revenue to state infrastructure instead of taking out more bonds. Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years, Smith wrote in a Capitol report sent by his office. Has the Missouri Department of Transportation really paid more than $700 million in debt payments in the last two years? Lets take a look at the numbers Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point. MoDOTs 2018 Financial Snapshot shows the department paid a little more than that, totaling $702 million in 2017 and 2018. My preference is to avoid debt when possible, Smith said. But, the debt paid doesnt tell the whole story. The department paid $412 million in debt in 2017. The departments average payment since 2004 is about $242 million a year. The number was higher in 2017 than past years because the agency paid off some of its debt early. In 2017, $117.8 million of bonds were paid off early, saving future interest costs of $29.4 million, said Sally Oxenhandler, MoDOT interim spokeswoman. This helped inflate Smiths point when he said MoDOTs debt reached more than $700 million in just two years. This graph of MoDOTs borrowed funds and annual payments helps visualize the amount of debt MoDOT paid in 2017, compared to debt payments in the past. (Look for the mountain peak.) Graph courtesy of MoDOTs Financial Snapshot, November 2018 Compared to other state transportation departments, Missouri does not have a lot of debt, said Todd Grosvener, MoDOT assistant financial services director. Still, Smith wants to limit the state department accruing any more debt. Keeping our road funds stable over the coming years is of the utmost importance, Smith said. When MoDOT takes on more debt, it has fewer dollars to improve our roads and bridges. What is the borrowed money used for? The borrowed funds were and are still being used for hundreds of road and bridge projects throughout Missouri, the agency said. The department borrowed the most money in 2010 when it took on an additional $100 million to replace the Mississippi River Bridge in St. Louis. In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state. On behalf of the House of Representatives, Ill be keeping a close eye on the amount of debt the state takes on to improve and maintain our transportation infrastructure, Smith said. Smith said, Our state transportation department already has a heavy debt load and has paid more than $700 million in debt payments in just the last two years. His numbers match MoDOTs records. They need clarification, however, because MoDOT paid off a big chunk of debt early, in order to avoid more interest accumulation. Because the statement is accurate and needs clarification, we rate the statement Mostly True.

['State Budget', 'Transportation', 'Missouri']

True

Documents from MoDOTshow that his numbers are on point.In 2010, the department also borrowed $685 million for theSafe and Sound Bridge Improvement Program. This three-and-a-half-year project replaced or rehabilitated more than 800 bridges across the state.

No, Domino's does not have any free online coupons available for two large pizzas.

['Yet another "free coupon" scam attempted to lure social media users with bogus promises.']

In April 2020, Facebook posts circulating online offered coupons supposedly good for two free large pizzas from the Domino's pizza chain: Users who clicked on the offer were taken to an external website where they were instructed to answer survey questions in order to receive their coupons: After completing the questionnaire, however, users were then required to click a button to share the "offer" with their Facebook friends before they could retrieve their coupons. Those who complied by spamming their friends were then allowed to click a "Receive the Coupon" button, but there was no actual coupon to receive. Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam. other free merchandise offers Facebook We've had many occasions to alert readers to this kind of fraud: These types of viral coupon scams often involve websites and social media pages set up to mimic those of legitimate companies. Users who respond to those fake offers are required to share a website link or social media post in order to spread the scam more widely and lure in additional victims. Then those users are presented with a survey that extracts personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and even sometimes credit card numbers. Finally, those who want to claim their free gift cards or coupons eventually learn they must first sign up to purchase a number of costly goods, services, or subscriptions. The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed: offers consumers

['share']

False

Like innumerable other "free merchandise" offers on Facebook, this offer was another variation of a common scam.The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed:

Cancer Baby Facebook Hoax

['Long-running hoax falsely claims Facebook will donate money to help a child with cancer every time an appeal for help is liked or shared.']

This appeal to help a child with cancer is merely another reiteration of a long-running class of hoaxes, often built around like farming. These hoaxes lure the gullible into spreading such messages by promising that some entity, such as Facebook, will donate money toward the medical treatment of a child with cancer (or some other disease) every time the message is forwarded, posted, liked, or shared. Multiple charities and companies have been unfairly dragged into such hoaxes over the years by being named in messages like these, causing them to spend considerable time and effort disclaiming them. The child whose photograph was appropriated for this hoax is not displaying visible symptoms of cancer. He is identified on multiple other online sites as a boy experiencing a reaction to the MMR vaccine and/or a case of rubella. Other versions of this hoax, positing that Facebook will donate money every time such an item is liked or shared, have circulated using a variety of different (unrelated) pictures: "This child has cancer. Facebook is ready to pay 3 cents for every share. We don't know if it is true or not, but let's everybody share. Maybe it's true and then... >SHARE< for this baby PLEASE SHARE, THANKS! By: 999,999,999 people. She's suffering from cancer! Facebook has promised to give $1.20 for each share! Please, share and make it happen. On the account of: Imran Khan. He is terribly sick :( What if this was your baby? Would you care at all? Facebook will donate $1 for every share. This child has lost his four limbs in a school bus accident. Facebook will pay $1 for every share..." Cook, Morgan. "Mother Works to Stop Exploitation of Child for Online Hoax." North County Times. 9 February 2012.

['share']

False

This appeal to help a child with cancer is merely yet another reiteration of a long-running class of hoax (often built around like farming), one which lures the gullible into spreading such messages by promising that some entity (such as Facebook) will donate money towards the medical treatment of a child with cancer (or some other disease) every time the message is forwarded, posted, liked, or shared. Multiple charities and companies have been unfairly dragged into such hoaxes over the years by being named in messages like these, causing them to have to spend considerable time and effort disclaiming them.The child whose photograph was appropriated for this hoax is not displaying visible symptoms of cancer.He's identified on multiple other online sites as a boy experiencing a reaction to the MMR vaccine and/or a case of rubella.

Is COVID-19 Stimulus Legislation Delayed Because of Pelosi?

['The president repeatedly blamed the U.S. House Speaker for not caring about Americans since she would not agree to his terms for COVID-19 relief aid.']

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here After a months-long political debate over how to address America's pandemic-stricken economy and just 13 days before the 2020 presidential election, U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's office announced she and U.S. President Donald Trump's top emissary, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, were inching toward an agreement on a new economic stimulus package. "Both sides are serious about finding a compromise," tweeted Drew Hammill, a spokesperson for Pelosi, on Oct. 20. The announcement came after repeated claims by Trump that Pelosi was the sole roadblock in his administration's plans to spend about $1.8 trillion on unemployment benefits, schools, and other initiatives adding to $3 trillion in emergency relief that the federal government approved in spring 2020. In a nationally televised town hall on Oct. 15, for instance, Trump said of Pelosi: "We are ready to sign and pass stimulus, but shes got to approve it," he said. "Shes penalizing our people. Im ready to sign a big, beautiful stimulus." Days later, while speaking to a Milwaukee news reporter, Trump suggested that Pelosi, who was running a reelection campaign to represent California's 12th Congressional District, was not negotiating in good faith and purposefully delaying a consensus until after the Nov. 3 election. That way, in theory, she and Democrats could restart stimulus talks with Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in the White House. "She thinks it's good politically for her not to approve it," Trump said. In an interview with Bloomberg, Pelosi denied that accusation by the president and his supporters and said she would not be negotiating with the White House if she did not want an agreement. Nonetheless, a closer look at the stimulus negotiations showed a more complex debate. It was not just Pelosi with whom the White House needed reconciliation to pass COVID-19 economic relief in fall 2020 as the president alleged. Here's what was true: Members of Congress and the White House reached an impasse over COVID-19 emergency spending in fall 2020. Mnuchin and Pelosi had intermittently negotiated terms of a comprehensive relief package since August, and the Democrat-led House approved a package totaling about $2.2 trillion concurrently. Weeks later, as the election crept closer, Trump said in media interviews that he would sign a package that was greater than House Democrats' proposal, even though key Republicans wanted him to go the opposite direction in negotiating. "I would rather go bigger than that [$2.2 trillion] number, but we'll see," he said on Fox & Friends. "[Pelosi] doesn't want to do anything until after the election, because she thinks it helps her. I actually think it helps us because everyone knows she's the one who's breaking up the deal." Fox & Friends All of that said, the Democrat-approved plan overlapped in some areas with the White House's proposal to help small businesses and pay each eligible U.S. citizen a one-time $1,200 check. But this was key: Trump's GOP allies in the Senate were skeptical of any proposal greater than $1 trillion. For months, they had debated economic stimulus measures smaller than the White House's initial proposal of about $1.6 trillion, which later grew to $1.8 trillion before Trump said he wanted to spend more than Democrats. Reuters reported: "Senate Republicans have repeatedly stated their opposition to additional COVID-19 relief spending near the $2 trillion mark and have focused instead on smaller initiatives." Reuters reported The Republicans were focusing on one-off initiatives to help businesses and families instead of a comprehensive spending bill. They supported one measure in particular that totaled about $650 billion in emergency economic relief, or about one-third the amount of Trump's proposal. In other words, the disagreement over funding was not along party lines, with Senate Republicans taking Trump's side and Pelosi leading an oppositional force, like most political battles over Trump's first term. Rather, key Republicans were skeptical of a relief package greater than $1 trillion and had not expressed support for the White House's proposal. As proof of that lack of enthusiasm for Trump's COVID-19 spending plan, the leading GOP vote-counter, Sen. John Thune, told reporters on Oct. 19 that "itd be hard" to find the necessary Republican support to pass the $1.8 trillion package. Additionally, multiple news reports said McConnell told Senate Republicans the following day that he had advised the White House against making any deal with Pelosi before the election significant evidence that the House Speaker was not the only barrier to a compromise. The New York Times reported: multiple The New York Times Mr. McConnells counsel, confirmed by three Republicans familiar with his remarks, threw cold water on Mr. Trumps increasingly urgent push to enact a fresh round of pandemic aid before he faces voters on Nov. 3. It underscored the divisions within the party that have long hampered a compromise. Republicans are growing increasingly anxious that Mr. Trump and his team are too eager to reach a multitrillion-dollar agreement and are conceding far too much to the Democrats. Republicans fear that scenario would force their colleagues up for re-election into a difficult choice of defying the president or alienating their fiscally conservative base by embracing the big-spending bill he has demanded. The Washington Post added: added Many Senate Republicans oppose a massive new spending bill and McConnell is not eager to hold a vote that would divide his conference just before the election, when most Senate Republicans want attention focused on the Barrett nomination. [...] McConnells remarks Tuesday indicate that even if Pelosi and Mnuchin do manage to reach a deal, any vote in the Senate would wait until after the election. If Democrats win a number of seats in the November elections, they could seize control of the Senate beginning in January. Nonetheless, if or when Pelosi and Mnuchin reached an agreement, Trump suggested on multiple occasions without evidence that he could convince naysayers to agree to whatever he wanted. "He'll be on board if something comes," Trump said of McConnell's reluctance in the Fox News interview. "Not every Republican agrees with me, but they will." Fox News interview The time window for an agreement before the Nov. 3 election was narrowing as of this report. Hammill, the spokesman for Pelosi, on Oct. 20 tweeted that Mnuchin and Pelosi had a 45-minute conversation earlier in the day that showed they were "serious about finding a compromise" and moving closer to an agreement in the coming days or weeks with the help of congressional committee chairs. In sum, considering McConnell, the Senate Majority leader, had reportedly told the White House to not make a deal with Pelosi proof that the House Speaker was not the only barrier to an agreement as well as a comment by another Senate Republican that "it'd be hard" to rally his colleagues around Trump's plan for emergency economic spending, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. Factba.se. "Interview: Charles Benson of WTMJ4 Milwaukee Interviews Donald Trump - October 17, 2020." Accessed 20 October 2020. Rev. "Donald Trump NBC Town Hall Transcript October 15." Accessed 20 October 2020. Nancy Pelosi Newsroom. "Dear Colleague: Update on Effort to Reach Coronavirus Relief Agreement Before Election." 18 October 2020. Nancy Pelosi Newsroom. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on ABC's This Week With George Stephanopoulos." 18 October 2020. Nancy Pelosi Newsroom. "Dear Colleague on Urgency to Pass Relief Bill with Values and Common Sense." 15 October 2020. Nancy Pelosi Newsroom. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's The ReidOut with Joy Reid." 19 October 2020. Taylor, Andrew. "Deadline Looms, But COVID Relief Deal May Be Far Off." The Associated Press. 20 October 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "Senate Republicans Are Pouring Cold Water on Approving A Multi-Trillion Dollar Stimulus Deal As Trump Pushes For A Larger Relief Package Than Democrats." Business Insider. 20 October 2020. Henney, Megan. "Trump Says He Want A Bigger Coronavirus Relief Package Than Pelosi's $2.2T Proposal." FOXBusiness. 20 October 2020. Stein, Jeff, et. al. "Trump Makes $1.8 Trillion Economic Relief Offer, But Deal With Pelosi Remains Elusive." The Washington Post. 9 October 2020. Cornwell, Susan. "Trump Pushes For Major COVID-19 Deal Over Senate Republican Objections." Reuters. 20 October 2020. House, Billy, et. al. "Pelosi Mnuchin Narrowing Gap on Stimulus, to Talk Again Tuesday." Bloomberg. 19 October 2020. Fandos, Nicholas. "McConnell Advises White house Not to Strike Pre-Electino Stimulus Deal With Pelosi." The New York Times. 20 October 2020. Stein, Jeff, and Werner, Erica. "McConnell Warns White House Against Making Stimulus Deal Before Election, Sources Say." The Washington Post. 20 October 2020.

['economy']

NEI

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here."I would rather go bigger than that [$2.2 trillion] number, but we'll see," he said on Fox & Friends. "[Pelosi] doesn't want to do anything until after the election, because she thinks it helps her. I actually think it helps us because everyone knows she's the one who's breaking up the deal."But this was key: Trump's GOP allies in the Senate were skeptical of any proposal greater than $1 trillion. For months, they had debated economic stimulus measures smaller than the White House's initial proposal of about $1.6 trillion, which later grew to $1.8 trillion before Trump said he wanted to spend more than Democrats. Reuters reported: "Senate Republicans have repeatedly stated their opposition to additional COVID-19 relief spending near the $2 trillion mark and have focused instead on smaller initiatives."As proof of that lack of enthusiasm for Trump's COVID-19 spending plan, the leading GOP vote-counter, Sen. John Thune, told reporters on Oct. 19 that "itd be hard" to find the necessary Republican support to pass the $1.8 trillion package.Additionally, multiple news reports said McConnell told Senate Republicans the following day that he had advised the White House against making any deal with Pelosi before the election significant evidence that the House Speaker was not the only barrier to a compromise. The New York Times reported:The Washington Post added:Nonetheless, if or when Pelosi and Mnuchin reached an agreement, Trump suggested on multiple occasions without evidence that he could convince naysayers to agree to whatever he wanted. "He'll be on board if something comes," Trump said of McConnell's reluctance in the Fox News interview. "Not every Republican agrees with me, but they will."

Was it O.J. Simpson who posted on Twitter that he intended to participate in the SAG-AFTRA strike?

['The former football player has acted and produced professionally in the past.']

In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down. A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line." The screenshot also indicates that Simpson tweeted from his official Twitter account, adding the words, "Union strong. #SAGStrike." However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have. We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, wearing the same shirt, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses. Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years. Simpson also produced and acted professionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997. Simpson's acting and producing credits entitled him to SAG membership, and he appears to have a SAG pension as well, but the extent of his active participation in union activities and current status is unknown. Regardless, the above screenshot clearly does not show Simpson supporting the actor's strike; rather, it was manufactured by altering a separate video and adding a fictional caption.

['investment']

False

In mid-July 2023, the Screen Actors Guild and American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (SAG-AFTRA), the union representing Hollywood actors and performers, voted to go on strike against major studios after negotiations broke down.A tweet by @KeatonPatti went viral on July 13, 2023, purporting to show a screenshot of a tweet and video in which O.J. Simpson appeared to show his support for the strike. The screenshot shows Simpson wearing a green shirt while standing in front of flowers. An overlaid caption quotes him as saying, "As a proud SAG member, I can't wait to join you all on the picket line."Oh no. pic.twitter.com/Cbx0lXJ8w5 Keaton Patti (@KeatonPatti) July 13, 2023However, the screenshot is fake. There is no evidence that Simpson issued such a tweet, nor that he made a video in which he expressed support for the guild strike. The writer Keaton Patti, who has previously written stories for humor sites like The Onion, likely shared this screenshot as a joke. Indeed, the replies to the tweet are largely joking about the impact the spectacle of the controversial figure joining the strikes would have.We went to Simpson's Twitter account, which primarily consists of videos of him sharing his views on a range of topics, but found no tweets in which he expressed support for the strike. The screenshot was likely created by editing a real screenshot from a July 11, 2023, tweet from Simpson titled, "Sports should be equal and fair," in which he shared his views on the inclusion of transgender athletes in sports. In that video, Simpson was shown sitting in front of the same flowers, with the same shirt on, with the camera at the same angle as the one in the manipulated screenshot, and the same reflection in his glasses.Sports should be equal and fair. pic.twitter.com/efsqiDpd7k O.J. Simpson (@TheRealOJ32) July 11, 2023Simpson, a former professional football player, gained notoriety in the 1990s after a sensational trial in which he was acquitted of the murder of his estranged wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend, Ronald Goldman. In 2008, he was found guilty in a botched robbery and sentenced to more than three decades in prison, of which he served nine years.Simpson also produced andactedprofessionally, appearing in "The Naked Gun" movie series, among others. His finances fell under scrutiny upon his 2017 release from prison. Tom Scotto, his friend, told USA Today that Simpson received money from a SAG pension, in addition to his National Football League pension and his personal investments in a retirement fund. According to the Hollywood Reporter, Simpson's SAG pension was protected from the millions of dollars he owed to the families of Brown Simpson and Goldman, after they won a wrongful death lawsuit against him in 1997.

Was Malia Obama Indicted for Food Stamp Fraud?

['"Obama has trained the youth of America to be so dependent on the government that even his own daughter thought she was entitled to free stuff."']

Back in December 2016, America's Last Line of Defense, a junk news website, published an article falsely reporting that First Daughter Malia Obama had been indicted on food stamp fraud charges. The article claimed that a member of the First Family would face fraud charges early in 2017, but it wasn't who one might think. It suggested that President Obama was guilty of fraud for his use of a fake birth certificate and for pretending to be a Christian, and that Michelle Obama was guilty for the $180 million in lavish vacations and the 200 staffers she employed to walk her dog and tend to her garden at the taxpayers' expense. However, they seemed impervious to any kind of action against them. Malia, however, was not going to be so lucky. The article alleged that while submitting her paperwork to attend Harvard, the oldest Obama daughter, who had recently turned 18, lied on her financial forms and failed to disclose the $9 million she had in the bank. This was not an issue with the school, as she was going on a full scholarship for being the daughter of a president, but it did not bode well with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The article claimed that Malia decided to fail to disclose her assets when she applied for food stamps. Yes, you heard that right. The article suggested that Obama had trained the youth of America to be so dependent on the government that even his own daughter thought she was entitled to free benefits just because she was not technically working. This item was a fabricated report that originated solely with America's Last Line of Defense, a junk news website that frequently publishes political misinformation as "satire." Several clues on the site indicate the satirical nature of its content, such as the "you're an idiot" tag at the top of the article, the disclaimer on the site's "About Page," and a special note beneath the article mocking its conservative targets. The disclaimer stated that the Resistance may include information from sources that may or may not be reliable and facts that do not necessarily exist. All articles should be considered satirical, and any quotes attributed to actual people are complete and total baloney. Pictures that represent actual people should be considered altered and not in any way real. While this story is ridiculous and cannot be verified, conservatives tend not to read below the pictures of patriotic pets. It is here that we can gather to point at them and laugh as they head back to their Facebook pages to make an immediate connection between Malia, food stamps, and black people. Yes, it really is that predictable. Although the rumor that Malia Obama was indicted on food stamp-related fraud charges originated with a 2016 junk news article, several social media users have continued to spread the false rumor in the ensuing years. In April 2019, nearly two-and-a-half years after this fake article was originally published, we encountered a meme asking, "What happened to Malia Obama's Food Stamp Fraud Charge?" The answer to the question posed in this meme can be answered quite simply: Nothing, because those charges never existed to begin with. America's Last Line of Defense has published a number of articles offering false claims about Malia Obama. We've previously covered items asserting that Malia once said white people would be "blended out," that she was expelled from Harvard, that she was caught streaking at college, that she founded an anti-Trump website, that she attacked an old woman, and that she was arrested for purchasing marijuana. None of the aforementioned stories was true.

['asset']

False

Back in December 2016, the America's Last Line of Defense junk news website published an article falsely reporting that First Daughter Malia Obama had been indicted on food stamp fraud charges (emphasis ours):This item was a fabricated report that originated solely with America's Last Line of Defense (LLOD), a junk news website that frequently publishes political misinformation as "satire." A number of clues on the site indicate the satirical nature of its content, such as the "you're an idiot" tag at the top of the article, the disclaimer in the site's "About Page," and a special note beneath the article mocking its conservative targets:Although the rumor that Malia Obama was indicted on food stamp-related fraud charges originated with a 2016 junk news article, several social media users have continued to spread the false rumor in the ensuing years. In April 2019, nearly two-and-a-half years after this fake article was originally published, we encountered a meme asking, "What happened to Malia Obama's Food Stamp Fraud Charge?":America's Last Line of Defense has published a number of articles offering false claims about Malia Obama. We've previously covered items asserting that Malia once said white people will be "blended out," that she was expelled from Harvard, that she was busted for streaking at college, that she founded an anti-Trump website, that she attacked an old woman, and that she was arrested for purchasing marijuana. None of the aforementioned stories was true.

Was the Revolving Door Invented by a Man Who Disliked Holding Open Doors for Women?

['The claim that Theophilus Van Kannel was motivated by a hatred for chivalry stems from no more than a humorous blog post published almost a century after his death.']

Since the middle of the last century, revolving doors have been a quietly ubiquitous feature of modern cities around the world. But do they have their origins in one man's neurotic attitude toward holding doors open for women? The most often-cited example of this legend is a 2013 article in Slate by Roman Mars, of the design podcast 99% Invisible. Slate The story goes like this: Theophilus Van Kannel hated chivalry. There was nothing he despised more than trying to walk in or out of a building, and locking horns with other men in a game of oh you first, I insist. But most of all, Theophilus Van Kannel hated opening doors for women. He set about inventing his way out of social phobia. In the accompanying podcast episode, Mars warned: "Keep in mind that with all these origin stories, when they sound a little too much like stories, they're probably not completely true." David McCall, writing in the Australian Design Review four years later, also traced the invention to Van Kannel's purported misogyny: writing The story goes that he invented the revolving door because he simply hated holding doors open for people, especially women. It has also been reported that Kannel [sic] was a man without a family. These two facts may not be unrelated. The earliest version of the story that we could find was a 2008 post by Jaime Morrison on the art and design blog The Nonist, which went into considerable detail about the origins of Van Kannel's aversion to chivalry, tracing it back to a public spanking from his mother and attributing his invention to his wife's insistence that he hold open doors for her at all times. post It seems that when Van Kennel [sic] was a boy, still in the care of his mother but just on the cusp of cultural manhood, he found the lingering rules of chivalry rather bothersome. In particular he refused to accept that he was expected to open the door for women and allow them to cross the threshold before him. A silly sort of quirk to our minds, certainly, but it was taken seriously enough by his mother that after numerous warnings and threats she eventually felt compelled to take action. Van Kennel [sic] family histories have it that at some point in his twelfth year she administered a savage bare-bottomed spanking, during a salon in the familys drawing room, in full and explicit view of 37 local mothers and daughters...Had this been the only episode the world may have never had a revolving door to shuffle through. As it so happens, however, Theophilus Van Kennel [sic] married a woman who, though beautiful and slyly clever, had an odd and stubborn quirk of her own. Young Abigail Van Kennel, it seems, refused to pass from one room of their apartments to another without the assistance of Theophilus. That blog post contains the tongue-in-cheek disclaimer that "...All untruths are, I assure you, my own. Ill leave it to you to sort out which is which"; and cites just one source, an essay by the MIT professor James Buzard -- which makes no mention of Van Kannel's now-legendary misogyny. essay Indeed, despite extensive archival research, we did not find any evidence to back up the persistent rumor that Theophilus Van Kannel invented and refined the revolving door because of a neurotic aversion to holding doors open for women and others. In fact, we found several pieces of evidence which severely undermine the credibility of this claim. In July 1882, an H. Bockhacker received a patent in Berlin for a "Thr ohne Luftzug" ("draftless door") whose design is essentially that of a revolving door. patent European Patent Office Six years later, on 7 August 1888, Theophilus Van Kannel of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania received Patent #387,571 for his "Storm Door Structure." Patent #387,571 U.S. Patents Office/Google In his patent application, Van Kannel wrote: It will be evident that a storm door structure of the character described possesses numerous advantages over a hinged-door structure of the usual character, for, as the door fits snugly in the casing, it is perfectly noiseless in its operation and effectually prevents the entrance of wind, snow, rain, or dust either when it is closed or when persons are passing through it. Moreover, the door cannot be blown open by the wind, as the pressure is equal on both sides of the center of motion. Van Kannel subsequently patented several refinements and improvements to the revolving door, founded the Van Kannel Revolving Door Company, and died in New York City on Christmas Eve, 1919, at the age of 78. refinements died Undated photograph of Theophilus Van Kannel. He was born in a log cabin in Coshocton County, Ohio, on 21 October 1841, to Swiss immigrant parents. Throughout his life, he was a prolific inventor. A 1988 publication of his autobiography and journal, housed in the Library of Congress, lists 49 patents, but the book's editor writes that Van Kannel might have actually put his name to "about 75" of them. autobiography and journal Over the years, Theophilus invented a cherry stoner, cider mill, water hydrant, shipping tag, gas machine check-valve, a sewing machine, an "apparatus for scalding vegetable or fruit," and many more. He was also the inventor and owner of the Witching Waves ride at a Coney Island amusement park. He married Amanda Clayton, of Chester, Illinois and in November 1867 the couple had a daughter named Lulu. This refutes David McCall's suggestion that Van Kannel's alleged misogyny was due to the fact that he did not have a family. He did. The fact that Van Kannel's wife was named Amanda also severely undermines The Nonist's colorful stories about his wife "Abigail," who "refused to pass from one room of their apartments to another." In fact, Theophilus Van Kannel's two-volume, almost 500-page autobiography and journal does not contain any evidence of any neurosis relating to women, nor any social phobias of any kind. What it does reveal is a multi-talented young man, somewhat sober and straight-laced, who struggled for many years with debt and an artificial leg, but enjoyed a fairly healthy social life, combined with a consistent dedication to his work. He wrote frequently to his mother, regularly visited his sister and her family, and spoke lovingly about his female relatives. (His journal entry on 30 January 1864 reads: "Letter from my sister requesting me to write an obituary for her husband. Sent $5 to mother.") Another entry suggests Van Kannel understood and honored the Victorian norms of chivalry, without any reservations. 28 September 1861 (aged 19): ...I received permission to buy some window blinds for the schoolhouse. While in the post office a very old lady came in to send off a letter, but she had no money to pay for the stamp. She asked the postmaster, Mr Bowman, to credit her, but he refused. I then bought ten cents' worth of stamps and sent her letter. She was a stranger to me... As he grew into his 20s, Van Kannel's journal shows him courting young women in Cincinnati, Ohio, all the while following the rules of chivalry and decorum. 26 February 1863 (aged 21): We all went to the church again this evening to practice our parts for the exhibition, and all showed great improvement. For the first time I mustered up enough courage to ask a young lady for her company home, and she very readily accepted. 1875 photograph of Theophilus Van Kannel with his wife Amanda and daughter Lulu. Nothing in his journal suggests the kind of "social phobia" or misogyny involved in the many stories told about him 150 years later. He attended church every Sunday, taught children, attended school with men and women, was an active member of debating societies, met friends for dinner and drinks (although he disliked drunkenness), and occasionally escorted young women home or to the theater. His interests and inventions were eclectic. By 1867 he was already developing a type of door spring, and so it's not at all surprising that he would turn his mind to the innovation that eventually became the revolving door. Swinging doors let in drafts, making it difficult to control the temperature of a building, especially one with heavy footfall like a bank or train station. It is in keeping with the pattern of Van Kannel's professional life that he would have identified this problem, and attempted to solve it using his gift for engineering. His invention of the revolving door does not require a psychological motivation. Nor were we able to find one, despite reading hundreds of pages of archival material and the journal of Theophilus Van Kannel himself. We looked at several news and feature articles about Van Kannel, some dating to the early 20th century. Not one mentioned Van Kannel's now-mythical misogyny or aversion to chivalry -- until The Nonist post, the veracity of which is extremely questionable. We contacted the 99% Invisible podcast, but we did not receive a reply by publication time. In October 2018, we received an email from Jaime Morrison, creator of the Nonist blog and author of the 2008 article about Theophilus Van Kannel and the invention of the revolving door. Morrison told us that he had written about Van Kannel's now-legendary misogyny as no more than a joke which he was disappointed to find had been taken seriously by others: I just wanted to confirm that yes, the piece was in fact a humor piece, and that yes the chivalry aspect of the story was a total fabrication...When I wrote the piece I assumed that the absurdity of the idea would be self-evident, and even hedged by including the disclaimer which [you quoted]. Alas, that old chestnut about assumptions proved its inherent wisdom yet again. Van Kannel, Harvey E.; Fox Marshall, Joanne. "T. Van Kannel, The Inventor: His Autobiography and Journal, Vol. 1-2." Library of Congress. 1988. Bisset, Colin. "Design File with Colin Bisset - the Revolving Door." Radio National/ABC (Australia.) 15 March 2014. Hrala, Josh. "The Revolving Door Was Invented to Put an End to Chivalry." Modern Notion. 15 May 2015. McCall, David. "In a Spin: the History of Revolving Doors." Australian Design Review. 24 July 2017. Morrison, Jaime. "The Secret History of the Revolving Door." The Nonist. Unknown publication date. Buzard, James. "Perpetual Revolution." Massachusetts Institute of Technology/Archive.org. 29 July 2005. Mars, Roman. "Why Don't People Use Revolving Doors?" 99% Invisible/Slate. 7 November 2013. Bockhacker, H. "Patentschrift No. 18349. Thr Ohne Luftzug." Kaiserliches Patentamt (Germany)/European Patent Office. 8 July 1882. Van Kannel, Theophilus. "Patent No. 387,571 - Storm Door Structure." U.S. Patents Office/Google. 7 August 1888. New York Tribune. "Death Notice - Theophilus Van Kannel." New York Tribune. 26 December 1919. Updated [23 October 2018]: The verdict on this fact check has been changed from "Legend" to "False" after the author of a 2008 blog post -- the earliest source of the claim -- came forward to confirm that he had fabricated it as a joke.

['debt']

False

The most often-cited example of this legend is a 2013 article in Slate by Roman Mars, of the design podcast 99% Invisible.David McCall, writing in the Australian Design Review four years later, also traced the invention to Van Kannel's purported misogyny:The earliest version of the story that we could find was a 2008 post by Jaime Morrison on the art and design blog The Nonist, which went into considerable detail about the origins of Van Kannel's aversion to chivalry, tracing it back to a public spanking from his mother and attributing his invention to his wife's insistence that he hold open doors for her at all times.That blog post contains the tongue-in-cheek disclaimer that "...All untruths are, I assure you, my own. Ill leave it to you to sort out which is which"; and cites just one source, an essay by the MIT professor James Buzard -- which makes no mention of Van Kannel's now-legendary misogyny. In July 1882, an H. Bockhacker received a patent in Berlin for a "Thr ohne Luftzug" ("draftless door") whose design is essentially that of a revolving door. European Patent OfficeSix years later, on 7 August 1888, Theophilus Van Kannel of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania received Patent #387,571 for his "Storm Door Structure." U.S. Patents Office/GoogleVan Kannel subsequently patented several refinements and improvements to the revolving door, founded the Van Kannel Revolving Door Company, and died in New York City on Christmas Eve, 1919, at the age of 78. Undated photograph of Theophilus Van Kannel.A 1988 publication of his autobiography and journal, housed in the Library of Congress, lists 49 patents, but the book's editor writes that Van Kannel might have actually put his name to "about 75" of them. 1875 photograph of Theophilus Van Kannel with his wife Amanda and daughter Lulu.

Did Barack Obama Say 'The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude'?

['Unreliable web sites stoked partisan rancor by attributing a fake, self-aggrandizing quote to former President Barack Obama.']

In July 2017, a number of right-leaning news and opinion web sites simultaneously reposted a six-month-old online editorial piece implying that former United States President Barack Obama believes the country owes him a debt of gratitude for his eight years of service in the White House. piece The reposted article is striking on various counts, not least for the fact that nowhere in it is President Obama quoted as saying such a thing. The false attribution has nevertheless been used as the headline in virtually every instance of the article's aggregation, as exemplified in these blurbs found on Facebook: published Conservative Daily Post Discerning readers will note that in lieu of a substantive critique, the author chose to further stoke the already existing anti-Obama sentiment of his audience by piling on epithets such as "delusional," "stinks of entitlement," and "blatantly disrespectful": Obama: The Country Deserves [sic] Me A Debt Of Gratitude For My Leadership During Barack Obamas final press conference Friday afternoon, he spent a majority of the time patting himself on the back. Obama told a room full of reporters that after eight years of his presidency, the United States is stronger, in better shape, and more respected across the world than ever before. Almost every country on Earth sees America as stronger and more respected today than they did eight years ago. Compiling a list of reasons why Barack Obama is a terrible president seems like a project for a book rather than a column, but I am sure many of you agree that Obama will undoubtedly go down as one of the worst presidents in American history. We dont even need to choose one failure of his the list of catastrophic failures will forever place the United States in a bad position. Our allies no long trust or respect us while our enemies no long fear us. Obama is right, he did accomplish all of that on his own. Its clear that hes been a disaster for America on a scale that few other presidents can match. Just look at his record. Whats worse, his blatantly disrespectful attitude stinks of entitlement a [sic] delusional thinking; Obama literally thinks we owe him something for his leadership. How does it make you feel to read that he thinks he will go down as one of the greatest presidents in our history? Most tellingly, the author's claim that Obama "literally thinks we owe him something" was conjured out of thin air. If the President had said or even implied any such thing, there is no evidence of it in the article, much less in the transcript of the December 2016 press conference. transcript So, what's to be gained by fabricating such a statement and attributing it to the former president? We can think of at least two motivations: politics and money (though not necessarily in that order). Some people, clearly, are ideologically motivated to share this kind of propaganda. For example, witness this true believer who converted the text into a YouTube video: video But others, such as the Serbia-based owner(s) of The Breaking News Today, and the Macedonia-based owners of USA Breaking News, Morning News, and Infowars Today (to cite just a few examples of foreign-owned web sites promulgating the Obama story), were likely in it for the advertising revenues. Serbia The Breaking News Today Macedonia based owners USA Breaking News Morning News Infowars Today The town of Veles, Macedonia, in particular, was known to be a hotbed of young pro-Trump fake news producers, according to a 15 February 2017 feature in Wired, many of whom have become extraordinarily wealthy grinding out propaganda for U.S. consumption: feature In the final weeks of the U.S. presidential election, Veles attained a weird infamy in the most powerful nation on earth; stories in The Guardian and on BuzzFeed revealed that the Macedonian town of 55,000 was the registered home of at least 100 pro-Trump websites, many of them filled with sensationalist, utterly fake news. (The imminent criminal indictment of Hillary Clinton was a popular theme; another was the popes approval of Trump.) The sites ample traffic was rewarded handsomely by automated advertising engines, like Googles AdSense. An article in The New Yorker described how President Barack Obama himself spent a day in the final week of the campaign talking almost obsessively about Veles and its digital gold rush. Within Veles itself, the young entrepreneurs behind these websites became subjects of tantalizing intrigue. Between August and November, Boris [the pseudonym of one of such entrepreneur] earned nearly $16,000 off his two pro-Trump websites. The average monthly salary in Macedonia is $371. One might suppose that Trump's electoral victory would have been bad for business, but the U.S. market for pro-Trump fake news -- even months-old pro-Trump fake news -- is still booming, probably due to the constant storm of controversy surrounding his administration. A sharp uptick in interest in the Obama "debt of gratitude" article leading to its aggregation by more pro-Trump sites occurred during a week in which it was announced that Donald Trump, Jr. had held a previously undisclosed meeting with a highly placed Russian lawyer during the 2016 presidential campaign, GOP legislation to repeal and replace Obamacare appeared to be tanking, and the president's approval rating fell to 36 percent. Coincidence? Possibly, but we suspect not. Clement, Scott and Balz, Dan. "Poll Finds Trump's Standing Weakened Since Springtime." The Washington Post. 16 July 2017. Subramanian, Samanth. "Inside the Macedonian Fake News Complex." Wired. 15 February 2017. Walsh, Martin. "Obama: The Country Deserves Me a Debt of Gratitude for My Leadership." Conservative Daily Post. 16 December 2016. The Breaking News Today. "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude." 18 July 2017. Infowars Today. "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude." 15 July 2017. Morning News. "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude." 15 July 2017. Politico. "Full Transcript: President Obamas Final End-of-Year Press Conference." 16 December 2017. USA Breaking News. "Obama: The Country Owes Me a Debt of Gratitude." 15 July 2017.

['debt']

False

In July 2017, a number of right-leaning news and opinion web sites simultaneously reposted a six-month-old online editorial piece implying that former United States President Barack Obama believes the country owes him a debt of gratitude for his eight years of service in the White House.Most tellingly, the author's claim that Obama "literally thinks we owe him something" was conjured out of thin air. If the President had said or even implied any such thing, there is no evidence of it in the article, much less in the transcript of the December 2016 press conference.Some people, clearly, are ideologically motivated to share this kind of propaganda. For example, witness this true believer who converted the text into a YouTube video:But others, such as the Serbia-based owner(s) of The Breaking News Today, and the Macedonia-based owners of USA Breaking News, Morning News, and Infowars Today (to cite just a few examples of foreign-owned web sites promulgating the Obama story), were likely in it for the advertising revenues.The town of Veles, Macedonia, in particular, was known to be a hotbed of young pro-Trump fake news producers, according to a 15 February 2017 feature in Wired, many of whom have become extraordinarily wealthy grinding out propaganda for U.S. consumption:

Did Trump Say He Found 12-Year-Old Paris Hilton Beautiful and Sexually Attractive?

['"Somebody who a lot of people dont give credit to but in actuality is really beautiful is Paris Hilton."']

Donald Trump's public career has encompassed multiple controversial pronouncements by him about women, perhaps most notoriously his comment about his own daughter, Ivanka, that "if [she] werent my daughter, perhaps Id be dating her. comment A similar remark has been attributed to Trump about one of his daughter's childhood friends, Paris Hilton, the celebrity great-grandaughter of Hilton Hotels founder Conrad Hilton. According to a popular meme, Donald Trump once admitted that when Paris Hilton was a mere 12-year-old, he found her to be beautiful and sexually attractive: This claim stemmed from one of several pre-presidential appearances Donald Trump made on Howard Stern's radio talk show. During that 2003 segment (which was also captured on video), Trump engaged in discussion about women he found attractive, and he brought up Paris Hilton, whom he said he'd known since she was 12 years old: video While Trump was discussing women he did or did not find attractive, he brought up Paris Hilton, a friend of his daughter Ivankas. Now, somebody who a lot of people dont give credit to but in actuality is really beautiful is Paris Hilton, he said. Ive known Paris Hilton from the time shes 12, her parents are friends of mine, and the first time I saw her she walked into the room and I said, Who the hell is that? Did you wanna bang her? Stern asked. Well, at 12, I wasnt interested, Trump said, Ive never been into that ... I've always stuck around that 25 category ... but she was beautiful. He then went on to call Hilton dumb like a fox and admitted that he had watched her sex tape. However, contrary to the wording of the meme, Trump only said he found 12-year-old Paris Hilton to be "beautiful"; he didn't say that "he felt 'boom' when she walked in the room," proclaim that she was "sexually attractive," state that he "lusted" after her, or otherwise suggest he found the thought of a physical relationship with a child that age appealing. In fact, he specifically stated that he "wasn't interested" in a 12-year-old, instead preferring women around the age of 25 or so. However discomfiting it may be to hear mature men bring up a 12-year-old in a conversation about female attractiveness, this instance doesn't live up to its memetic billing. Satlin, Alana Horowitz. "Trump Admits He Found 12-Year-Old Paris Hilton Attractive." HuffPost. 1 October 2016.

['credit']

NEI

Donald Trump's public career has encompassed multiple controversial pronouncements by him about women, perhaps most notoriously his comment about his own daughter, Ivanka, that "if [she] werent my daughter, perhaps Id be dating her.This claim stemmed from one of several pre-presidential appearances Donald Trump made on Howard Stern's radio talk show. During that 2003 segment (which was also captured on video), Trump engaged in discussion about women he found attractive, and he brought up Paris Hilton, whom he said he'd known since she was 12 years old:

Did Trump Refer to 'China Virus' on Fox the Night Asian Women Were Killed in Atlanta?

['The former president had called into Fox on March 16 to talk about issues unrelated to the Atlanta-area mass shooting.']

Around 5 p.m. EDT on March 16, 2021, a 21-year-old white man allegedly shot and killed eight people—six of whom were Asian women—at three Atlanta-area spas. As of this report, the investigation into the mass shooting remains ongoing. As word of the tragedy spread online, people flooded social media with messages of sympathy for the deceased. Many posts classified them as unknowing victims of the country's increasing xenophobia, given a surge of attacks against Asian Americans that coincided with the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., as well as pervasive violence against women. Among those posting was Aaron Rupar, a journalist at Vox. A couple of hours after the incident, for instance, he blamed former U.S. President Donald Trump's characterization of the coronavirus for the growing hate crimes against Asian Americans and tweeted: "[I] don't think it's a coincidence that Trump spent the better part of a year using a virus as a slur against Chinese people while hate crimes against Asian Americans spiked by 150 percent." Rupar was referring to Trump's repeated insistence on calling the coronavirus the "Chinese virus," which goes against widely accepted public health guidelines that warn against titling disease outbreaks after nations or regions to eliminate stigmatization, as well as 2020 hate crime statistics in 16 U.S. cities compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University. About 20 minutes later, Rupar added: As authorities in the Atlanta area embarked on a manhunt to catch the suspect on the evening of March 16, Trump referred to the coronavirus as the "China virus" on Fox News. But let this be clear: No evidence explicitly connected the former president's use of the term on national television with the tragedy unfolding simultaneously in Georgia. Furthermore, it was unclear whether he was even aware of the mass shooting when he said "China virus" while discussing unrelated matters—specifically, his presidential administration's approach to the American economy. The interviewer did not ask him about the Atlanta-area shooting. Here's what happened: Between roughly 6 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. EDT, according to The Associated Press, the victims' bodies were reported inside massage parlors, and authorities arrested the suspected gunman—Robert Aaron Long, of Woodstock, Georgia—as he was driving on the interstate. Meanwhile, at 7 p.m. EDT, Trump called in for a phone interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, a recording of which Snopes obtained via the media outlet's website and is displayed below. Throughout much of the interview, the former president lambasted his successor's approach to immigration, criticized election security, and took credit for the ongoing efforts to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to every American willing to get one. Then, at approximately the 5-minute mark, he said: "[The economy] was recovering under my administration—twice. We got it to a level that the world has never seen before. We were the envy of the world, and then when we got hit by the, as I call it, 'the China virus'—COVID—it obviously went down along with every other economy. And then we were the first to get it back up."

['economy']

True

Around 5 p.m. EDT on March 16, 2021, a 21-year-old white man allegedly shot and killed eight people -- six of whom were Asian women -- at three Atlanta-area spas. The investigation into the mass shooting remained ongoing, as of this report.As word of the tragedy spread online, however, people flooded social media with messages of sympathy for the deceased. Many posts classified them as unknowing victims of the country's increasing xenophobia, given a surge of attacks against Asian Americans that coincided with the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S, or pervasive violence against women.Among such posters was Aaron Rupar, a journalist at Vox. A couple of hours after the incident, for instance, he blamed former U.S. President Donald Trump's characterization of the coronavirus as a reason for growing hate crimes against Asian Americans, and tweeted:Rupar was referring to Trump's repeated insistence on calling the coronavirus the "Chinese virus" -- going against widely accepted public health guidelines that warn against titling disease outbreaks after nations or regions of the world to eliminate stigmatization -- and 2020 hate crime statistics in 16 U.S. cities compiled by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University.The underlying claim was true as authorities in the Atlanta area embarked on a manhunt to catch the suspect on the evening of March 16, Trump referred to the coronavirus as the "China virus" on Fox News.Meanwhile, at 7 p.m. EDT, Trump called in for a phone interview with Fox News' Maria Bartiromo, a recording of which Snopes obtained via the media outlet's website and is displayed below.Throughout much of the interview, the former president lambasted his successor's approach to immigration, criticized election security, and took credit for the ongoing efforts to provide COVID-19 vaccinations to every American willing to get one. Then, at approximately the 5-minute mark, he said:

Is Pelosi advocating for ensuring a minimum income for undocumented immigrants in the upcoming COVID-19 stimulus package?

['A right-wing provocateur made the claim in a May 2020 tweet as federal leaders negotiated what to include in their next COVID-19 economic relief package.']

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. fighting Find out Read Submit Become a Founding Member CDC WHO On May 4, 2020 as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens." COVID-19 Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers: To investigate the validity of his claim, we examined Pelosi's public statements and media appearances to determine if, or when, she used the phrased "guaranteed income" and under what circumstances. While Kirk provides no explanation for where or when or to whom Pelosi made the remarks in the above-displayed tweet aside from the tweet's indication with the word "BREAKING" that the House Speaker had made the comments shortly before he composed the post we considered statements by Pelosi since the beginning of the COVID-19 U.S. outbreak in early 2020 for our investigation. Within that timeframe, she used or referenced the phrase "guaranteed income" in three public statements, two of which were televised interviews. First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded: April 24 CARES I think that it should be clear that this (COVID-19 stimulus spending so far) is not doing the job that it is set out to do completely, that we may have to consider some other options. Others have proposed a sovereign fund profits of which go to these unemployed people or guaranteed income, other things that may not even be as costly as continuing down this path. She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation. Andrew Yang Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said: MSNBC As we go forward, let's see what works: what is operational and what needs other attention. Others have suggested a minimum income for a guaranteed income for people. Is that worthy of attention now? Perhaps so, because there are many more people than just in small business and hired by small business, as important as that is to the vitality of our economy. And other people who are not in the public sector, you know, meeting our needs in so many ways, that may need some assistance as well. Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks not a sweeping system for universal basic income. CBS News CNBC Business Insider guarantee worker paychecks Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks. May 1 receiving one-time stimulus checks. In the call, Pelosi expressed support for legislation that would guarantee COVID-19 economic relief to not only people with Social Security numbers but also immigrants and their families who use Individual Taxpayer Identification Numbers (ITINs), which the IRS assigns to workers without Social Security numbers, to pay annual taxes. According to the IRS, the federal agency issues the numbers "regardless of immigration status, because both resident and nonresident aliens may have a U.S. filing or reporting requirement under the Internal Revenue Code." In other words, some immigrants who use the identification numbers (ITINs) not social security numbers to pay taxes may be "undocumented." According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi: transcript Pretty recently you said that Congress should consider adding some form of guaranteed monthly income into the next coronavirus relief package. So I was wondering if you would extend that form of guaranteed income to undocumented immigrants and non-citizens who file taxes with tax ID numbers, ITINs, instead of Social Security numbers? In her response, Pelosi reiterated that she thinks federal leaders should consider guaranteed income and that she would talk to chairs of House committees about exploring the idea further. Additionally, as they consider future economic benefits for Americans during the pandemic, she said: Any way we go down the path that [ITINs] should apply, whether its direct payments, whether its participation in PPP (the federal Paycheck Protection Plan loan program)... I said it [guaranteed income] should be considered. And, why it should be considered, in my view, is because there is a lot of money, federal taxpayer dollars, going out the door. Whether its PPP, whether its Unemployment Insurance, whether its direct payments ... But, whatever we do, I think the tax number is an easy entre to many more people who deserve it, who should get this, but are being cut out now, in whatever it is that we are putting out there. Given the nature of and circumstances surrounding the May 1 call, and considering the fact that Pelosi did not mention "guaranteed income" in any other public statements after the U.S. COVID-19 outbreak and before Kirk's viral posting, we determined it to be the most likely source of inspiration for his May 4 tweet. However, though Pelosi said she wants people who use ITINs to receive economic relief from the federal government during the pandemic a group that would include "undocumented" immigrants she did not say she wants the government to provide stimulus payments to all "undocumented" immigrants. Additionally, the House Speaker said she wanted federal leaders to consider, not implement, "guaranteed income" for Americans, unlike what Kirk's tweet implies. In sum, given those reasons as well as the lack of clarity for what Pelosi means by the phrase "guaranteed income," the context in which she made the comments analyzed above, and the fact that she did say she wanted future stimulus money to help foreign people without Social Security numbers we rate this claim as "false." Rosenberg, Mattew and Rogers, Katie. "For Charlie Kirk, Conservative Activist, the Virus Is a Cudgel." The New York Times. 19 April 2020. Ruhle, Stephanie. "Pelosi says guaranteed income may be worth considering amid coronavirus hardships." MSNBC. 27 April 2020. Real Time with Bill Maher. "Speaker Nancy Pelosi | Real Time with Bill Maher (HBO)." YouTube. 24 April 2020. Silverstein, Jason. "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans worth considering for coronavirus recovery." CBSNews. 28 April 2020. Zeballos-Roig, Joseph. "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi opens the door to guaranteed income for Americans, saying it's 'worthy of attention.'" Business Insider. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Pelosi Remarks on Press Call with Congressional Hispanic Caucus and Mixed-Status Families on Denial of COVID-19 Stimulus Checks." Newsroom. 1 May 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on MSNBC's Live with Stephanie Ruhle." Newsroom. 27 April 2020. Pelosi, Nancy. "Transcript of Pelosi Interview on HBO's Real Time with Bill Maher." Newsroom. 24 April 2020. Internal Revenue Service. "Individual Taxpayer Identification Number." Accessed 11 May 2020.

['loan']

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. On May 4, 2020 as federal leaders debated how to respond to an unprecedented interruption to the U.S. economy due to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic a conservative provocateur tweeted that U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she wanted the country's next economic relief package to establish "guaranteed minimum incomes" for "illegal aliens."Suggesting that only legal U.S. residents should benefit from federal stimulus packages, Charlie Kirk who's the founder of the conservative political group Turning Point USA and social media ally of U.S. President Donald Trump said in the tweet to his roughly 1.7 million followers: First, the House Speaker spoke the words on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on April 24. In light of the federal government's approval of the $2.2 trillion Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 (and stimulus bills totaling about $500 billion since then), Maher asked Pelosi if the federal government could afford similar economic relief packages for Americans should the pandemic keep businesses closed and systems locked down in the coming months. She responded:She provided no further details on the so-called proposals for "guaranteed income," which generally refers to a government-imposed system so that every citizen receives a minimum income a central idea of the 2020 presidential campaign by former Democratic candidate Andrew Yang. Also in the conversation with Maher, Pelosi did not explicitly state that she wanted the system implemented via Congressional legislation.Three days later, however, the House Speaker again said the words "guaranteed income" in a televised interview, this time with more specificity on her openness to the social welfare system. In the April 27 segment of MSNBC's "Live with Stephanie Ruhle," while explaining federal leaders' next steps to help small businesses survive the financial crisis, Pelosi said:Soon after she made the statement on live TV, news outlets including CBS News and CNBC published stories with headlines such as, "Pelosi says 'guaranteed income' for Americans is worth considering for coronavirus recovery." In a story by Business Insider about the televised comments, an aid to Pelosi said the House Speaker was referring to proposals that would guarantee worker paychecks not a sweeping system for universal basic income.Then, on May 1, the House Speaker and the Congressional Hispanic Caucus made themselves available to journalists via a conference call to discuss provisions within the CARES Act that exclude immigrants without Social Security numbers from receiving one-time stimulus checks. According to a transcript of the May 1 call, at one point a reporter asked Pelosi:

White House Raises

['Chart shows raises given to White House staffers in 2010?']

Claim: Chart shows top 20 raises given to White House staffers in 2010. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2011] Well here you go folks - outrageous salary increases at the WH. Go Google and set your search parm to white house top 20 raises and you'll get everything you want to know about this article. What the heck does a Director of African-American Media do to get an 86% increase? Hang out over at Black Entertainment TV or maybe sit around and read Ebony? Remember in November Remember: no Cost of Living Adjustment for seniors for two years. HMMM...17% to 86% RAISES IN SALARY FOR HIS WHITE HOUSE STAFF MEMBERS!!. NO WONDER WE CAN'T HAVE A COST OF LIVING INCREASE & HE WANTS TO NOW RAISE OUR TAXES ALSO. SOUNDS LIKE THE ADMINISTRATION IS REALLY LOOKING OUT FOR THE VOTERS, DOESN'T IT ???? Origins: This graphic detailing the "White House's Top 20 Raises" (which actually includes 21 entries) originated as an accompaniment to a 6 July 2011 Gawker article entitled "White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not." graphic article The chart is accurate as far as it goes, but by itself it does not include the context that 19 of the 21 staffers listed also received new job titles, so the pay increases were not straight raises but came in tandem with promotions and/or increased job responsibilities. The Gawker article also noted that, because the number of paid staffers decreased from 466 in 2010 to 451 in 2011, the White House's salary budget actually dropped from $38.8 million to $37.1 million, and the average salary for staffers also dropped from $82,721 to $81,765 (about 65% above the median household income). Last updated: 11 August 2011 Fader, Carole. "White House Staff Got Pay Raises, But There's More to the Story." Jacksonville.com. 7 August 2011.

['budget']

False

Origins: This graphic detailing the "White House's Top 20 Raises" (which actually includes 21 entries) originated as an accompaniment to a 6 July 2011 Gawker article entitled "White House Staffers Got a Raise Last Year, And You Did Not."

Is the Kennedy Center Changing to the Obama Center?

['Is The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts changing its name to the Obama Center?']

Claim: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is changing its name to the Obama Center. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2014] Rumor: The Kennedy Center For The Arts' name is being changed to the Obama Center For The Arts. Origins: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a performance hall and education complex located on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. Although the Kennedy Center is the official home of the National Symphony Orchestra and the Washington National Opera, it is most widely known for hosting the annual Kennedy Center Honors, a program which recognizes living individuals for lifetime artistic achievement and which is broadcast live on network television each year. John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts Kennedy Center Honors Although the legislation to establish a National Cultural Center was signed by President Eisenhower in 1958, it was President and Mrs. Kennedy who used their influence as well known patrons of the arts to raise the private funds necessary to establish and maintain the center. After President Kennedy's death in 1963, Congress "designated the National Cultural Center ... as a 'living memorial' to Kennedy." living memorial But there is another Kennedy Center, this one a community recreation center and senior citizens hall in Willingboro, New Jersey. In early August 2014 the Willingboro Township Council voted to rename that Kennedy Center in honor of President Barack Obama: A recreation and senior citizens center in Willingboro known as the "Kennedy Center" will soon be named after the sitting president and not a former one. The change became official Tuesday when the township council voted to change the name of the building to honor President Barack Obama. The name of the street the building is on Kennedy Way will not be changed. A shopping center across the street is also named for Kennedy. That name change was planned as part of a multi-million dollar renovation of the Willingboro community facility, which converted the former high school cafeteria into a banquet hall. But after alumnae/i of the former Kennedy High School protested, the Willingboro council reversed the decision at its September 2014 meeting: Dawn Donnelly, of Burlington Township, a 1977 graduate of Kennedy, came to the meeting with 1,200 signatures of those opposing the name change. Im an Obama supporter, Donnelly said. I voted for him two times, and I would vote for him again. Its not about that.... Kennedy meant a lot to this town in the 1960s. They are changing history. Last updated: 3 September 2014 Goldman, Jeff. "Building In N.J. Town Named After John F. Kennedy Will Now Be Named After Obama." The Star-Ledger. 7 August 2014. Levinsky, David and Rose Krebs. "Willingboro Council Reverses Kennedy Center Name Change." Burlington County Times. 2 September 2014.

['funds']

False

Origins: The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts is a performance hall and education complex located on the banks of the Potomac River in Washington D.C. Although the Kennedy Center is the official home of the National Symphony Orchestra and the Washington National Opera, it is most widely known for hosting the annual Kennedy Center Honors, a program which recognizes living individuals for lifetime artistic achievement and which is broadcast live on network television each year.Cultural Center was signed by President Eisenhower in 1958, it was President and Mrs. Kennedy who used their influence as well known patrons of the arts to raise the private funds necessary to establish and maintain the center. After President Kennedy's death in 1963, Congress "designated the National Cultural Center ... as a 'living memorial' to Kennedy."

Public education has been permanently cutby $1.6 billion through changes in the Standards of Quality funding formula.

[]

The Virginia Education Association says the state has been saving money by lowering public school standards.Since the 2008 General Assembly, we have permanently cut biennial funding for public education by $1.6 billion through changes in the Standards of Quality funding formula, VEA President Kitty Boitnottsaidin a Jan. 23 news conference.The $1.6 billion cited by Boitnott is an eye-popping number. We wanted to know if her figure is correct and if the loss of the funding is, as she said permanent.The Standards of Quality are minimum mandates Virginia sets forth for public education on teacher-pupil ratios, benefits for educators and basic curricula. The General Assembly sets the benchmarks every two years after considering recommendations by the state Board of Education.Virginia is required by law to pay 55 percent of the overall cost of the SOQs and local school districts must pay the rest. For this two-year budget cycle, which began July 1, 2010, the state will pay about $9.6 billion toward meeting the SOQs, and localities will pay about $7.8 billion.Boitnott is essentially saying the state obligation would have been $1.6 billion higher if the General Assembly had not taken steps since 2008 to lower Virginias education standards.Robley Jones, the VEAs director of government relations, said Boitnotts figures came from areporton education funding released last month by the Senate Finance Committee. The study contained a table detailing the 10 substantive reductions to public education programs approved by the General Assembly since 2008. The cuts came to a biennial total of $1.57 billion, and Boitnott rounded up.The biggest savings came from reducing the number of support positions -- such as clerks, teacher aides and bus drivers -- required by the state. That action removed $754 million in SOQ obligations.Lawmakers in 2010 found another $513 million in savings by eliminating certain types of equipment and travel from SOQ calculations and changing the formula for estimating health care costs for school employees.Boitnott, however, is slightly off in her analysis of the the Senate Finance Committees data. The table makes no claim that the 10 cut education programs it lists were part of the SOQs, as Boitnott suggests.In fact, four of the items were not part of the states minimum requirements, according to Charles Pyle, a spokesman for the Department of Education. They account for $174 million in biennial costs.So the real reduction in SOQ mandates comes to about $1.4 billion per biennium. Jones, who provided the information for Boitnotts statement, said he made an inadvertent mistake in computing the SOQ reductions.That brings us down to one last question: Are the cuts to the SOQ formula permanent, as Boitnott says?Technically, they are not. The General Assembly is free to restore the funding, but that is not likely to happen. Julie Grimes, a spokeswoman at the Department of Education, said officials there cannot recall an instance where legislators cut funding for an SOQ program and later replenished it.When the state reduces funding for SOQ programs, localities often absorb the costs. Most school districts in Virginia are not satisfied with just attaining minimum SOQ standards and fund their schools at far greater levels than the state demands.The SOQs allow legislators to claim they fund 55 percent of the states educational mandates. But a different picture emerges when total expenditures on Virginia public education are computed. The localities pay about 50 percent, the state, the state pays 40 percent and roughly 10 percent comes from the federal government.Our ruling:Boitnott said that since 2008, the legislature has permanently cut $1.6 billion in programs from the states formula for funding public schools. Shes a bit off; the actual figure is $1.4 billion.Boitnott said these losses are permanent. The General Assembly could restore funding, but a spokesman at the state Department of Education said officials cannot recall an instance where lawmakers cut an SOQ program and later reversed themselves.We rate Boitnotts claim Mostly True.

['Education', 'State Budget', 'Virginia']

True

The Virginia Education Association says the state has been saving money by lowering public school standards.Since the 2008 General Assembly, we have permanently cut biennial funding for public education by $1.6 billion through changes in the Standards of Quality funding formula, VEA President Kitty Boitnottsaidin a Jan. 23 news conference.The $1.6 billion cited by Boitnott is an eye-popping number. We wanted to know if her figure is correct and if the loss of the funding is, as she said permanent.The Standards of Quality are minimum mandates Virginia sets forth for public education on teacher-pupil ratios, benefits for educators and basic curricula. The General Assembly sets the benchmarks every two years after considering recommendations by the state Board of Education.Virginia is required by law to pay 55 percent of the overall cost of the SOQs and local school districts must pay the rest. For this two-year budget cycle, which began July 1, 2010, the state will pay about $9.6 billion toward meeting the SOQs, and localities will pay about $7.8 billion.Boitnott is essentially saying the state obligation would have been $1.6 billion higher if the General Assembly had not taken steps since 2008 to lower Virginias education standards.Robley Jones, the VEAs director of government relations, said Boitnotts figures came from areporton education funding released last month by the Senate Finance Committee. The study contained a table detailing the 10 substantive reductions to public education programs approved by the General Assembly since 2008. The cuts came to a biennial total of $1.57 billion, and Boitnott rounded up.The biggest savings came from reducing the number of support positions -- such as clerks, teacher aides and bus drivers -- required by the state. That action removed $754 million in SOQ obligations.Lawmakers in 2010 found another $513 million in savings by eliminating certain types of equipment and travel from SOQ calculations and changing the formula for estimating health care costs for school employees.Boitnott, however, is slightly off in her analysis of the the Senate Finance Committees data. The table makes no claim that the 10 cut education programs it lists were part of the SOQs, as Boitnott suggests.In fact, four of the items were not part of the states minimum requirements, according to Charles Pyle, a spokesman for the Department of Education. They account for $174 million in biennial costs.So the real reduction in SOQ mandates comes to about $1.4 billion per biennium. Jones, who provided the information for Boitnotts statement, said he made an inadvertent mistake in computing the SOQ reductions.That brings us down to one last question: Are the cuts to the SOQ formula permanent, as Boitnott says?Technically, they are not. The General Assembly is free to restore the funding, but that is not likely to happen. Julie Grimes, a spokeswoman at the Department of Education, said officials there cannot recall an instance where legislators cut funding for an SOQ program and later replenished it.When the state reduces funding for SOQ programs, localities often absorb the costs. Most school districts in Virginia are not satisfied with just attaining minimum SOQ standards and fund their schools at far greater levels than the state demands.The SOQs allow legislators to claim they fund 55 percent of the states educational mandates. But a different picture emerges when total expenditures on Virginia public education are computed. The localities pay about 50 percent, the state, the state pays 40 percent and roughly 10 percent comes from the federal government.Our ruling:Boitnott said that since 2008, the legislature has permanently cut $1.6 billion in programs from the states formula for funding public schools. Shes a bit off; the actual figure is $1.4 billion.Boitnott said these losses are permanent. The General Assembly could restore funding, but a spokesman at the state Department of Education said officials cannot recall an instance where lawmakers cut an SOQ program and later reversed themselves.We rate Boitnotts claim Mostly True.

Proposed adjustments to tax policies

['E-mail compares proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 presidential election.']

Claim: E-mail compares proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 presidential election. Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2008] This is something you should be aware of so you don't get blindsided. This is really going to catch a lot of families off guard. It should make you worry. Proposed changes in taxes after the 2008 General election: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales. How does this affect you? If you sell your home and make a profit, you will pay 28% of your gain in taxes. If you are heading toward retirement and would like to downsize your home or move into a retirement community, 28% of the money you make from your home will go to taxes. This proposal will adversely affect the elderly who are counting on the income from their homes as part of their retirement income. DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN: 15% (no change) OBAMA: 39.6%. How will this affect you? If you have any money invested in the stock market, IRA, mutual funds, college funds, life insurance, retirement accounts, or anything that pays or reinvests dividends, you will now be paying nearly 40% of the money earned in taxes if Obama becomes president. Experts predict that higher tax rates on dividends and capital gains would crash the stock market yet do absolutely nothing to cut the deficit. INCOME TAX MCCAIN (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama, your taxes will more than double! How does this affect you? No explanation needed. This is pretty straightforward. INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax. How does this affect you? Many families have lost businesses, farms, ranches, and homes that have been in their families for generations because they could not afford the inheritance tax. Those willing their assets to loved ones will not only lose them to these taxes. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2,400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! Origins: Every recent presidential election cycle has brought e-mailed forwards that paint the Democratic candidate as a proponent of a "tax and spend" philosophy (who will inevitably implement significant tax increases on taxpayers across all income levels) and present the Republican candidate as a model of fiscal conservatism, and the example quoted above fits this pattern. However, this example is off the mark both in its broad strokes and in its particulars. According to the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the candidates' proposed tax changes, the primary difference between them would be distributional, with Senator Obama's proposals favoring lower-income taxpayers and Senator McCain's favoring higher-income taxpayers: analysis McCain: The average taxpayer in every income group would see a lower tax bill, but high-income taxpayers would benefit more than everyone else. Obama: High-income taxpayers would pay more in taxes, while everyone else's tax bill would be reduced. Those who benefit the most in terms of reducing their taxes as a percentage of after-tax income are in the lowest income groups. The statements made about the candidates' proposals for changes in specific taxes (or implementation of new taxes) are also all erroneous or grossly misleading. as we note below: CAPITAL GAINS TAX MCCAIN: 0% on home sales up to $500,000 per home (couples). McCain does not propose any change in existing home sales income tax. OBAMA: 28% on profit from ALL home sales. The statement that Senator Obama proposes instituting a 28% tax "on profit from ALL home sales" is false. Both candidates' proposals would leave intact an existing capital gains exemption for the first $500,000 per household of profit from the sale of a primary residence. Homeowners who realize a profit higher than the current exemption amount from the sale of their primary residences might pay more capital gains tax under an Obama presidency than they would now, but those instances currently constitute a very small minority of all home sales. (For the purposes of this article, the term "per household" refers to married couples who file taxes jointly.) The mention of Obama's imposing a 28% capital gains tax as president is also misleading. Senator Obama has indicated he would likely raise the capital gains tax rate, but he has not specified by how much; the 28% figure is a previous (i.e., pre-Bush) capital gains tax rate which Obama stated he would certainly not exceed while noting that his capital gains tax rate would likely be "significantly lower": Q: How do you plan to change the tax code when it comes to capital gains? How high will that 15 percent rate go? A: Well, you know, I haven't given a firm number. Here's my belief, that we can't go back to some of the, you know, confiscatory rates that existed in the past that distorted sound economics. And I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton, which was the 28 percent. I would and my guess would be it would be significantly lower than that. I think that we can have a capital gains rate that is higher than 15 percent. The Tax Plan Fact Sheet posted on Obama's website says that he will "create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent." Tax Plan DIVIDEND TAX MCCAIN: 15% (no change) OBAMA: 39.6%. The notion that Senator Obama is proposing raising the tax rate on dividend income from its current 15% level to a 39.6% is unfounded. Obama has proposed taxing dividends at the same rate as capital gains, and although he hasn't yet specified a figure for the latter, he has already stated (as noted above) that he "certainly would not go above" 28%. Also, the proposed increase would only affect households with income of more than $250,000 per year (a figure that encompasses about 2% of U.S. households.) INCOME TAX MCCAIN: (no changes) Single making 30K - tax $4,500 Single making 50K - tax $12,500 Single making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 60K - tax $9,000 Married making 75K - tax $18,750 Married making 125K - tax $31,250 OBAMA: (reversion to pre-Bush tax cuts) Single making 30K - tax $8,400 Single making 50K - tax $14,000 Single making 75K - tax $23,250 Married making 60K - tax $16,800 Married making 75K - tax $21,000 Married making 125K - tax $38,750 Under Obama, your taxes will more than double! This is an erroneous interpretation of federal income tax rates based on the premise that Senator McCain favors extending the temporary tax cuts instituted by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003, while Senator Obama does not. However, both senators said they would favor extending those tax cuts; the difference is that Senator Obama said he would not favor extending the tax cuts for households with incomes of $250,000 or more per year. Since none of the tax tables listed above applies to that income level, their inclusion is irrelevant and misleading. As noted at the head of this article, taxpayers in the brackets covered by these tables would likely see a greater reduction in taxes under Senator Obama's proposals than under Senator McCain's, an outcome reflected in the Tax Policy Center's estimate of how the average tax bill could change in 2009 under each candidate's proposals: estimate INHERITANCE TAX MCCAIN: 0% (No change, Bush repealed this tax) OBAMA: Restore the inheritance tax. Pretty much everything asserted about the inheritance tax (also referred to as "death tax" or "estate tax") in these few short statements that President Bush repealed it, that Senator McCain would maintain it at 0%, and that Senator Obama would "restore" it is wrong. In general, estate tax currently applies only to estates valued at more than $2 million and tops out at a 45% rate. The exclusion amount is already set to rise to $3.5 million in 2009, followed by a repeal of the estate tax in 2010, and then a reinstatement of the estate tax in 2011 with the exclusion amount reverting back to $1 million and the tax rate topping out at 55%. repeal Senator McCain has proposed raising the estate tax exclusion amount to $5 million and setting a maximum estate tax rate of 15%, while Senator Obama has proposed raising the estate tax exclusion amount to $3.5 million and maintaining the maximum estate tax rate at its current 45% level. NEW TAXES BEING PROPOSED BY OBAMA * New government taxes proposed on homes that are more than 2,400 square feet * New gasoline taxes (as if gas weren't high enough already) * New taxes on natural resources consumption (heating gas, water, electricity) * New taxes on retirement accounts and last but not least.... * New taxes to pay for socialized medicine so we can receive the same level of medical care as other third-world countries!!! Three of these five statements are completely erroneous: Senator Obama has not proposed a tax on "homes that are more than 2,400 square feet," any "new gasoline taxes," or "new taxes on retirement accounts." The phrase "taxes on natural resources consumption" presumably refers to Senator Obama's "cap and trade" proposal for reducing carbon emissions, a proposal which would likely impose additional costs on polluters but isn't technically a "tax": cap and trade Obama supports implementation of a market-based cap-and-trade system to reduce carbon emissions by the amount scientists say is necessary: 80 percent below 1990 levels by 2050. Obama's cap-and-trade system will require all pollution credits to be auctioned. A 100 percent auction ensures that all polluters pay for every ton of emissions they release, rather than giving these emission rights away to coal and oil companies. Some of the revenue generated by auctioning allowances will be used to support the development of clean energy, to invest in energy efficiency improvements, and to address transition costs, including helping American workers affected by this economic transition. As for "new taxes to pay for socialized medicine," Senator Obama has proposed funding his health care plan through additional revenues generated by not extending the Bush administration's temporary tax cuts for persons making more than $250,000 per year. Whether allowing a portion of already-scheduled expiration of temporary tax cuts to take place really constitutes "new taxes" is a matter of semantics. health care Last updated: 16 July 2008 Sources: Sahadi, Jeanne. "What They'll Do to Your Tax Bill." CNNMoney.com. 11 June 2008. Sahadi, Jeanne. "What Obama Means by Tax the Wealthy." CNNMoney.com. 28 June 2008. Closing Bell. "Maria Bartiromo Speaks with Senator Barack Obama." CNBC. 27 March 2008.

['stock market']

False

However, this example is off the mark both in its broad strokes and in its particulars. According to the Tax Policy Center's analysis of the candidates' proposed tax changes, the primary difference between them would be distributional, with Senator Obama's proposals favoring lower-income taxpayers and Senator McCain's favoring higher-income taxpayers:The Tax Plan Fact Sheet posted on Obama's web site says that he will "create a new top capital gains rate of 20 percent." This is an erroneous interpretation of federal income tax rates based on the premise that Senator McCain favors extending the temporary tax cuts instituted by the Bush administration in 2001 and 2003, while Senator Obama does not. However, both senators said they would favor extending those tax cuts; the difference is that Senator Obama said he would not favor extending the tax cuts for households with incomes of $250,000 or more per year. Since none of the tax tables listed above applies to that income level, their inclusion is irrelevant and misleading. As noted at the head of this article, taxpayers in the brackets covered by these tables would likely see a greater reduction in taxes under Senator Obama's proposals than under Senator McCain's, an outcome reflected in the Tax Policy Center'sestimate of how the average tax bill could change in 2009 under each candidate's proposals:In general, estate tax currently applies only to estates valued at more than $2 million and tops out at a 45% rate. The exclusion amount is already set to rise to $3.5 million in 2009, followed by a repeal of the estate tax in 2010, and then a reinstatement of the estate tax in 2011 with the exclusion amount reverting back to $1 million and the tax rate topping out at 55%. The phrase "taxes on natural resources consumption" presumably refers to Senator Obama's "cap and trade" proposal for reducing carbon emissions, a proposal which would likely impose additional costs on polluters but isn't technically a "tax":As for "new taxes to pay for socialized medicine," Senator Obama has proposed funding his health care plan through additional revenues generated by not extending the Bush administration's temporary tax cuts for persons making more than $250,000 per year. Whether allowing a portion of already-scheduled expiration of temporary tax cuts to take place really constitutes "new taxes" is a matter of semantics.

Does 'Forrest Gump' Plot Include These Inconsistencies?

['We carefully reviewed scenes of the 1994 film for holes in its storyline.']

In early 2021, Snopes became aware of online posts alleging narrative plot holes in the 1994 film "Forrest Gump," which American screenwriter Eric Roth created based on a novel with the same title. One Reddit thread, for example, debated the accuracy of a scene in the latter half of the movie in which the fictional protagonist, Forrest Gump, played by Tom Hanks, received a letter from the computer software company, Apple. Reddit thread Additionally, a webpage on My Daily Magazine a digital hub of self-improvement tips and other content alleged Gump's famous cross-country run (which came after the Apple letter scene) spanned 1.5 years, based on other context clues, though Gump said he ran for more than three years. My Daily Magazine Below, we analyzed the legitimacy of those claims, which together asserted that the movie that mixed fictional characters and ideas with real events contained at least two plot holes. Before we proceed, let us note here: We requested an interview with Roth by reaching out to the Los Angeles-based talent company, called Creative Artists Agency, which represents the screenwriter, according to IMDB. We have yet to receive a response, and we will update this report when or if we receive one. Creative Artists Agency One Reddit user alleged: "Iconic 'Forrest Gump' Scene Has One Ridiculous Flaw No One Noticed | Forest Gump is set in 1975 and he got a letter from Apple, which wasn't founded until 1981." In other words, the post claimed Gump received a letter from the tech company before it was established. The Reddit post referenced a montage scene roughly one hour and 40 minutes into the movie, when Gump explained his life after working with "Lt. Dan" as a member of his platoon and later as shrimp boat partners. Gump narrates the scene: scene As Gump mentions the "fruit company," movie viewers saw him opening a letter addressed to him with Apple's retro rainbow logo and the title "Apple Computer, Inc." We took the below-displayed screenshot of the moment, via Amazon's digital rental version of the film: As you can see, the letter was dated Sept. 23, 1975. While the Reddit post claimed the computer manufacturing company was actually formed in 1981 which we learned was inaccurate based on evidence we outlined below we pieced together events showing when, exactly, college dropouts Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak created the company. As a 26-year-old engineering intern at Hewlett-Packard Company, or HP, Wozniak indeed developed a plan to build his own computer in 1975, after a New-Mexico-based tech firm announced the invention of the first-ever commercially successful microcomputer, the Altair 8800, the previous year, according to Encyclopedia Britannica and the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Wozniak Encyclopedia Britannica Smithsonian National Museum of American History Wozniak initially pitched his design to his employer, historical records show. But after it expressed no interest in his idea, he teamed up with his former high-school classmate, 21-year-old Jobs, to act on his vision by piecing together equipment in Jobs' Silicon Valley garage. "Jobs and Wozniak named their company Apple," Britannica said. Portrait of American businessmen and engineers Steve Jobs (left) and Steve Wozniak in 1977. (Photo by Tom Munnecke/Getty Images) So while Wozniak first acted on a design that eventually led to the company's creation in 1975, Apple Computers, Inc, was not officially established until April 1, 1976, according to an arm of The Library of Congress that documents American business and economics, called Business Reference Services. Business Reference Services The underlying assertion of the Reddit post's claim was accurate: Jobs and Wozniak founded Apple after the date of Gump's letter. Additionally, Apple did not launch an initial public offering (IPO) of its stock which would have hypothetically allowed Lt. Dan to invest his and Gump's money in the tech company until December 12, 1980, according to EDN, a trade magazine for electrical design and engineering news. EDN "The shares sold out almost immediately and the IPO generated more capital than any IPO since Ford Motor Company in 1956," the magazine reported. "Instantly, about 300 millionaires were created, some 40 of which were Apple employees and investors." In sum, since the letter supposedly depicting Gump's stock investment in Apple was dated in fall 1975, and the fact that Jobs and Wozniak did not officially launch the company until the following spring and allowed public shareholding years after that, it was true to say the movie scene included a narrative plot hole. The original "Forrest Gump" novel by Vietnam veteran Winston Groom, which was published about eight years before the movie's release, did not reference Apple or "some kind of fruit company" in its storyline, based on our keyword search of the text. Winston Groom, In an October 2020 slideshow of "Interesting Facts About Forrest Gump," My Daily Magazine alleged of a roughly seven-minute sequence in the movie, depicting the long run by Gump: alleged seven-minute sequence Forrest Gump said that he was running for three years and two months. But he actually started running the day President Carter collapsed from heat in October 1, 1979, and ran until he got Jenny's letter the day President Regan's [sic] assassination attempt was all over the news. Between the first and the second event, only a year and a half had passed. Put another way, the webpage claimed Gump only ran for 1.5 years not three years and about two and a half months, like Gump claimed in his narration of the scene based on surrounding details of the film that depicted real historical events. (Note: Winston's novel did not include the famous cross-country run by Gump.) However, the movie's famous "run scene" began on Gump's front porch in the fictional town of Greenbow, Alabama. The character said "for no particular reason, I decided to go for a little run." Within seconds, viewers saw Gump running past a business in which at least two men were watching a television news cast. The news program said in the background of Gump's narration: "President Carter, suffering from heat exhaustion, fell into the arms of ..." President Jimmy Carter indeed suffered from heat exhaustion while running a six-mile race in Maryland on Sept. 15, 1979, according to news archives obtained by Snopes. "The President was sweating excessively and had become weak and wobbly at the 4-mile point due to heat exhaustion," The New York Times reported two days later. "Carter fell to his knees and was given smelling salts." news archives reported While it was unclear whether the news anchor in in Forrest Gump was reporting on Carter's fall live or recapping the event days after it happened, the inclusion of the detail likely meant movie producers wanted viewers to believe Gump began his run in mid-September 1979. After passing the business, Gump's narration continued as images of him running past Alabama's state line to Mississippi, and eventually reaching the Pacific Ocean in Santa Monica, California, appeared on screen. He supposedly made the same multi-state trip multiple times, only stopping to sleep, eat, and use the bathroom. Then, at one point, movie viewers saw men inside a barbershop and people inside a cafe, including Gump's love interest Jenny Curran, watching TV news programs featuring Gump's run. One news anchor said he had been running for more than two years, which would put the date in mid-September 1981 or later, based on Carter's heat exhaustion episode. By the end of the montage, when he apparently stopped running and returned to Alabama, Gump claimed, "I had run for three years, two months, 14 days and 16 hours." Screenshot via Amazon's digital version of Forrest Gump. The movie's next scene showed a news program playing footage of President Ronald Reagan approaching a limousine and people ducking from gunshots. "Five or six gunshots were fired by an unknown, would-be assassin," a news anchor said, as Gump listened to the broadcast. "The president was shot in the chest." That detail again referenced a real-life event, the attempted assassination of Reagan in Washington, D.C., on March 30, 1981, according to news archives. The president was leaving a hotel speaking event when gunman John Hinkley Jr. opened fire, wounding Reagan and three administration officials. the attempted assassination John Hinkley Jr. Based on back-of-the-napkin math, only one year, six months and 15 days passed between Carter's collapse and Reagan's assassination attempt, proving the underlying claim of The Daily Magazine webpage true Gump's alleged timeframe for the run did not align with the actual timing of simultaneously-referenced historical events. According to ScreenCraft, an organization that aims to help aspiring screenwriters, cinematic storytellers should avoid such plot errors, big or small, that expose inconsistencies in characters' motivation or storylines. ScreenCraft "Even the best screenwriters make mistakes," wrote Ken Miyamoto, a ScreenCraft blogger and former Sony Pictures screenwriter. "The small ones are those that may slip by the average audience member." Ken Miyamoto

['investment']

True

One Reddit thread, for example, debated the accuracy of a scene in the latter half of the movie in which the fictional protagonist, Forrest Gump, played by Tom Hanks, received a letter from the computer software company, Apple.Additionally, a webpage on My Daily Magazine a digital hub of self-improvement tips and other content alleged Gump's famous cross-country run (which came after the Apple letter scene) spanned 1.5 years, based on other context clues, though Gump said he ran for more than three years.Before we proceed, let us note here: We requested an interview with Roth by reaching out to the Los Angeles-based talent company, called Creative Artists Agency, which represents the screenwriter, according to IMDB. We have yet to receive a response, and we will update this report when or if we receive one.The Reddit post referenced a montage scene roughly one hour and 40 minutes into the movie, when Gump explained his life after working with "Lt. Dan" as a member of his platoon and later as shrimp boat partners. Gump narrates the scene:As a 26-year-old engineering intern at Hewlett-Packard Company, or HP, Wozniak indeed developed a plan to build his own computer in 1975, after a New-Mexico-based tech firm announced the invention of the first-ever commercially successful microcomputer, the Altair 8800, the previous year, according to Encyclopedia Britannica and the Smithsonian National Museum of American History. Portrait of American businessmen and engineers Steve Jobs (left) and Steve Wozniak in 1977. (Photo by Tom Munnecke/Getty Images)So while Wozniak first acted on a design that eventually led to the company's creation in 1975, Apple Computers, Inc, was not officially established until April 1, 1976, according to an arm of The Library of Congress that documents American business and economics, called Business Reference Services.Additionally, Apple did not launch an initial public offering (IPO) of its stock which would have hypothetically allowed Lt. Dan to invest his and Gump's money in the tech company until December 12, 1980, according to EDN, a trade magazine for electrical design and engineering news.The original "Forrest Gump" novel by Vietnam veteran Winston Groom, which was published about eight years before the movie's release, did not reference Apple or "some kind of fruit company" in its storyline, based on our keyword search of the text.In an October 2020 slideshow of "Interesting Facts About Forrest Gump," My Daily Magazine alleged of a roughly seven-minute sequence in the movie, depicting the long run by Gump:President Jimmy Carter indeed suffered from heat exhaustion while running a six-mile race in Maryland on Sept. 15, 1979, according to news archives obtained by Snopes. "The President was sweating excessively and had become weak and wobbly at the 4-mile point due to heat exhaustion," The New York Times reported two days later. "Carter fell to his knees and was given smelling salts." Screenshot via Amazon's digital version of Forrest Gump.That detail again referenced a real-life event, the attempted assassination of Reagan in Washington, D.C., on March 30, 1981, according to news archives. The president was leaving a hotel speaking event when gunman John Hinkley Jr. opened fire, wounding Reagan and three administration officials.According to ScreenCraft, an organization that aims to help aspiring screenwriters, cinematic storytellers should avoid such plot errors, big or small, that expose inconsistencies in characters' motivation or storylines."Even the best screenwriters make mistakes," wrote Ken Miyamoto, a ScreenCraft blogger and former Sony Pictures screenwriter. "The small ones are those that may slip by the average audience member."

Is ICE conducting a 'Citizens Academy' program to train civilians in apprehending individuals classified as 'undocumented' immigrants?

['An ICE initiative in Chicago aims to "debunk myths" about the agency known for its detention centers and targeting of immigrant communities.']

As so-called undocumented immigrants in the U.S. struggled to avoid deportation and risked their health during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, government agencies created potential new challenges for them. In July, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) department announced they would be offering a six-day Citizens Academy training starting in September in Chicago, which would allow civilians and ICE officers to engage with each other. struggled risked their health announced Snopes readers shared the following letter from ICE, reportedly sent to potential participants across Chicago, and asked us if it meant the agency would be training civilians to assist in the apprehension of undocumented people. The answer is complicated. letter We found that this was an actual letter sent by ICE. Although they said they were planning to conduct trainings in September and would show civilians how they made arrests, the notion that this would lead to civilians actually apprehending undocumented people was disputed by the agency. Immigration advocates, however, were skeptical. In order to understand the actual nature and likely outcome of these trainings, we reached out to ICE, as well as immigration advocates, and looked at past examples of such academies. According to an ICE press release, the interactive program would occur once a week over six weeks. Participants would learn about ICE policies and procedures from ERO officers, while officers would hear participants perspectives and debunk myths about ICE. press release The curriculum will include, but is not limited to, classroom instruction, visiting an immigration detention center, learning more about the health care ICE provides to those in its custody, and examining ICEs role in ensuring dignity, respect and due process of an immigration case from start to finish. Many in Chicago received letters from ICE inviting them to apply. The letter said, attendees will participate in scenario-based training ... including, but not limited to defensive tactics, firearms familiarization, and targeted arrests. received Nicole Alberico, an ICE spokesperson, responded to Snopes' request for more information about the training (emphasis ours): ...the academy is not to train members of the public to do the work of trained, federal law enforcement officers. ICE ERO Citizens Academy is modeled after other law enforcement community outreach programs including ICEs Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), FBI and local police departments all with the goal of directly engaging and educating the public. Chicago ERO is looking for a diverse set of influential community leaders regardless of their stance on ICE to apply. The spokesperson said that they also had not determined whether media would be permitted to attend the training, as they were considering health precautions because of the pandemic and privacy concerns. In sum, according to their own descriptions, ICE plans on showing civilians how they as an agency carry out arrests but will not be training civilians to do arrests themselves. According to one report, such a Citizens Academy has already taken place in Los Angeles for years, with participants simulating drug busts, arrests, and stakeouts. According to one graduate, the course immersed people in what the agents do. While the Chicago program was to be run by ERO, the Los Angeles Academy was being run under ICEs Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) department. one report simulating The goal of such training appeared to be to get more people to understand ICEs perspective, see how they operate, and eventually construct a positive image of the agency in various communities. There is no available evidence that such trainings led to civilians participating in actual arrests. Testimony from activists, human rights organizations, and reporting show ample proof of ICEs history of violating detainees rights, inhumane arrests of undocumented immigrants, separating children from their parents, and the lack of accountability surrounding their operations. ICE has also used civilian informants before. violating detainees rights arrests lack of accountability civilian informants The Citizens Academy announcement faced swift backlash from activists and government officials, including Chicago's alderman, Rossana Rodriguez, who labeled it a vigilante academy. In July, Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley put forward an amendment to the Homeland Security spending bill, barring agencies like ICE from using government funds to run Citizens Academy courses. vigilante academy forward Immigration activists said these classes were at best propaganda and at worst would train civilians to "snitch" on undocumented immigrants. Lam Nguyen Ho, executive director of Beyond Legal Aid, an organization that provides legal services to immigrants in Chicago, spoke to Snopes about the dangers of such academies: said propaganda ... the best case scenario for this training is ICE doing a marketing campaign to justify continuing to deport undocumented immigrants indiscriminately and separating families inhumanely ... We have immigrants afraid of opening their doors and applying for immigration rights to which they are actually eligible due to the fears and violence they see ... I cant imagine the misinformation and fears that will be created when an agency of our government is basically sanctioning and coordinating neighbors surveilling, profiling, or worse against each other. (Update: The Chicago Citizen's Academy was postponed in 2020 due to the pandemic, and a new date had not been announced. According to a statement from an ICE official, it will be tentatively scheduled for the spring of 2021.) In sum, ICE confirmed that the Citizens Academy course will take place, but denied they will train civilians to carry out arrests. Based on ICEs history of abuses against immigrant populations, the fears surrounding this particular training aren't unreasonable, but the exact nature and outcome of the training remains to be seen. Based on all of the above factors, we rate this claim a Mixture. Da Silva, Chantal. "DHS Spending Bill Amended to Ban Funding for ICE's Citizen's Academy." Newsweek. 15 July 2020. Da Silva, Chantal. "ICE Offering 'Citizens Academy' Course with Training on Arresting Immigrants." Newsweek. 9 July 2020. Gonzalez, Christina."ICE Citizen Academy Causing Uproar in Chicago, Has Been Going on in Los Angeles - for Years." Fox11 Los Angeles. 11 July 2020. Human Rights Watch. "US: Stop Using Untrained, Abusive Agencies at Protests." 5 June 2020. Kaplan, Emily. "What Isolation Does to Undocumented Immigrants." The Atlantic. 27 May 2020. Katz, Ryan. "Play to Stay." The Intercept. 24 September 2018. McFarling, Usha Lee. "Fearing Deportation, Many Immigrants at Higher Risk of Covid-19 Are Afraid to Seek Testing or Care." StatNews. 15 April 2020. Mejia, Brittny. "At Citizen Academies, Devoted Participants Get Their Law Enforcement Fix." Los Angeles Times. 3 December 2018. Tashman, Brian. "Congress Needs To Hold ICE Accountable for Abuses." ACLU. 2 February 2018. Torres, Adry. "ICE Is Offering a Six-week Course on How to Arrest Immigrants - Including 'Firearms and Defensive Training' - as Critics Warns They Are Using Private Citizens As Their Eyes and Ears." The Daily Mail.8 July 2020. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. "ICE Offers First Citizens Academy for Public to Learn More About Agencys Mission in Chicago." 13 July 2020. Zamudio, Maria Ines. "ICE Citizens Trainings May Be a 'Vigilante Academy,' Chicago Alderman Warns." NPR. 10 July 2020.

['accountability']

NEI

As so-called undocumented immigrants in the U.S. struggled to avoid deportation and risked their health during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic, government agencies created potential new challenges for them. In July, the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcements (ICE) Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) department announced they would be offering a six-day Citizens Academy training starting in September in Chicago, which would allow civilians and ICE officers to engage with each other.Snopes readers shared the following letter from ICE, reportedly sent to potential participants across Chicago, and asked us if it meant the agency would be training civilians to assist in the apprehension of undocumented people. The answer is complicated.According to an ICE press release, the interactive program would occur once a week over six weeks. Participants would learn about ICE policies and procedures from ERO officers, while officers would hear participants perspectives and debunk myths about ICE.Many in Chicago received letters from ICE inviting them to apply. The letter said, attendees will participate in scenario-based training ... including, but not limited to defensive tactics, firearms familiarization, and targeted arrests.According to one report, such a Citizens Academy has already taken place in Los Angeles for years, with participants simulating drug busts, arrests, and stakeouts. According to one graduate, the course immersed people in what the agents do. While the Chicago program was to be run by ERO, the Los Angeles Academy was being run under ICEs Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) department. Testimony from activists, human rights organizations, and reporting show ample proof of ICEs history of violating detainees rights, inhumane arrests of undocumented immigrants, separating children from their parents, and the lack of accountability surrounding their operations. ICE has also used civilian informants before.The Citizens Academy announcement faced swift backlash from activists and government officials, including Chicago's alderman, Rossana Rodriguez, who labeled it a vigilante academy. In July, Democratic Rep. Mike Quigley put forward an amendment to the Homeland Security spending bill, barring agencies like ICE from using government funds to run Citizens Academy courses.Immigration activists said these classes were at best propaganda and at worst would train civilians to "snitch" on undocumented immigrants. Lam Nguyen Ho, executive director of Beyond Legal Aid, an organization that provides legal services to immigrants in Chicago, spoke to Snopes about the dangers of such academies:

Sniper Avoidance Tips

["Does an e-mail offer sniper-avoidance tips from an experienced 'SWAT sniper'?"]

Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] Hello everyone, As you may already know I have been a SWAT Sniper for about 3 years. My specialty is Counter Sniper for Presidential and dignitary protection. What this basically means is, I am posted at certain locations looking for a sniper/assassin. Once a threat is detected, I am charged in countering his/her ability to attack by early detection and neutralizing (killing) him/her. Now on to business: This Sniper killing people in the DC Metro area is a skilled sharpshooter and very calculated. Unfortunately he appears very disturbed and has just left a calling card stating he was God. What that probably means is he may escalate the matter by increasing the rate of killing in each attack because he acknowledges the police's hot pursuit. This sniper knows it's a matter of time before he is discovered. He thinks he is superior to everyone, but knows eventually he will be caught. He is playing a very sick game that he feels he is winning. He will probably want to sensationalize his confrontations with the police and eventually stop running and have a standoff. The police may be his future targets. It is very important that you adjust your regular routine because this is a very deadly individual. I am going to give you my personal/professional advice on the matter. The Sniper's MO (his methods) are the following.a. 1st wave of attacks were concentrated in an area the suspect was very familiar with.b. It appears these initial attacks were closer, probably less than 100 yards away. Witnesses were hearing loud cracks.c. He definitely is showing off. He is trying to maintain 100%, one shot for one kill. (Sniper's creed).d. He is probably not shooting the first person that appears. He is looking for the highest probable kill. This encompasses distance, position, and movement of the individual and excludes physical barriers(vehicles, tress, columns, etc).e. He is shooting from areas adjacent to major roadways, thoroughfares, highways, etc. (quick egress). First group was within a couple of miles from beltway. Child shot in Bowie was a block away from the US 50 on the 197.f. He went up to northern Virginia (70 miles away) to throw police off his trail (diversion, used by snipers for stalking targets and eluding enemy).g. He is making this to be a giant "Stalk" around the Metro area. It is a game now. He wants them to come after him (like he is in his own war against the enemy).h. He is probably using any foliage (tree line, woods, bushes) that is around the malls, shopping center, gas stations, and parking lots.i. He is able to shoot accurately out to 500 yards (5 football fields) with or without a scope (depends on individual's abilities).j. The farther out he/she is, the more difficult of course it is to detect or pinpoint location. This aids in egress as well. (He knows this). My advice to you all is to consider the following. 1. Avoid unnecessary errands.2. Bring someone along.3. Do not stand outside your vehicle grabbing things out the car.4. If you go to the store, put items in back seat of car (nothing in trunk) so that you can grab items and exit quickly.5. When slowing down or at a stop, keep windows closed (glass deflects bullets, he knows this and he is not shooting through glass anymore).6. Never walk straight to a door more than 20 feet away. Zig zag and walk at angles. The shooter is setting up on doorways/entrances and waiting for victims to line up on entrance. The hardest shot for a sniper is a target traversing laterally to his/her position. Walk between cars, use them for protection, and NEVER walk in a straight line to a doorway. Park as close as possible. Be mindful of wooded areas and any bushes around establishment. More than likely surrounding areas. Look for reflections (glare of the scope or weapon). Use drive-thru at fast food. Look around and make it obvious (looking over your shoulder in the distant) he may hesitate if they think someone notices him. Point to what you are looking at as well. You want to telegraph yourself to others and get them involved. Keep clear of abandoned vehicles, but concern yourself with them. He is probably parking along roads and walking to his shooting position. You are probably safer inside the DC area only because congestion will prevent him an easy egress for the sniper. So if there is a toss up for a store then pick the inner city (not the outer boundaries). The main thing is being careful. Everyone is at risk even the police. He is able to pick the time and place so he has the overall advantage over the police. If you still have difficulty sorting it out, then just stay home (smile). These are just my opinions and hopefully can help in your daily activities. Take care. God Bless. Origins: Each new crisis that reaches national attention seems to bring out at least one widely-circulated Internet message penned by a self-proclaimed expert eager to share his credentials and expertise offering simple, practical steps the average person can take to deal with and lessen his exposure to danger from the impending threat. Just as we saw similar messages about how to protect ourselves against gas, germ, and nuclear attacks and mailed anthrax, now we have this latest missive about dealing with the sniper who has been terrorizing the Washington, D.C., area since October 2, killing nine victims and wounding two others. attacks anthrax sniper That these messages circulate widely is not surprising: fear of becoming the victim of someone's dealing out death seemingly at random is a powerful emotion. No one can take comfort from the knowledge that he is not a part of the group being targeted when victim selection fits no identifiable pattern, and people begin to look for protective steps they can take to ensure their safety. Even if the steps offered actually provide little or no real protection, they fill our emotional need to have a sense of being able to assert some measure of control over our lives and fates rather than passively allowing someone else to control them. As always, the most commonly asked question is, "Is this real?" Since the message quoted above does not contain any information about its author, verifying that it comes from someone who can claim to be a "SWAT Sniper" or a "Counter Sniper for Presidential and dignitary protection" is difficult. (Some versions included a first name and cell phone number at the end with an invitation to "give me a call if any of this is confusing," but that phone number is no longer in service.) Are the tips (if not the psychological analysis of the motivation and experience of the unknown sniper) offered at least good ones? In general, yes, they match advice offered by other experts, although the message omits one of more common pieces of advice now being given out (one which runs contrary to the usual tenets for avoiding crime): try to stay away from well-illuminated areas: BALTIMORE (AP) - Men who spent their careers studying snipers are giving civilians in the Washington suburbs the kind of advice they once gave to people accustomed to living in the line of fire: Keep moving. Look for cover. Dark, out-of-the-way spots may be the safest places for people to buy groceries or pump gas, said retired Maj. John Plaster, former Army Green Beret and author of "The Ultimate Sniper," a police and military training manual. He offered the advice Thursday to people in counties surrounding Washington, where sniper attacks have terrorized people for nine days. "If you look at where the night shootings have taken place, they were well illuminated," Plaster said. "Think about how well lit a gas station is at night when you're pumping gas." Don Bassett, a former FBI instructor who trained agents to be snipers, said people should make themselves difficult targets. Anyone in an open area should keep moving especially if the area is surrounded by woods or rolling terrain, he said. Anyone getting out of a car should avoid the most brightly lit areas of service stations or parking lots. Bassett said quiet, country roads may be safer than busy streets for taking a walk or a jog. He calls schools and service stations "target-rich areas" because they see a constant flow of traffic. "I think he's picking targets of opportunity that are more or less plums," Bassett said. People walking quickly are harder to shoot, he said. Plaster said people should also be aware when they're standing in an area where they're visible from more than 80 to 100 yards away. He said it's not difficult for a trained marksman to hit a target from that distance. "I would try to be more alert, but at the same time you have to go on with your life," Plaster said. Perhaps the larger issue is not whether these tips might somehow lessen one's chances of becoming a sniper victim, but how practical they actually are. How many people can effectively train themselves to "look for reflections" every time they walk through foliage or approach buildings adjacent to shrubbery, remember to approach every doorway by walking in a "zig zag" fashion, or spend their days constantly looking around and over their shoulders while pointing at everything they look at and attempting to engage the attention of others? And why stop with these tips? Mightn't, for example, taking to wearing clothing that can serve as camouflage be even better? As always, a danger exists beyond the direct one created by the current crisis: that a large group of people a whole suburban area, or even the entire country can all too easily be paralyzed through fear and panic. That the average citizen can best help himself and others by being well-informed and aware is indeed good advice, but we must also be wary of being lured into the comfortable trap of thinking that "things aren't as dangerous as we feared" (or, worse, "there is no danger") because someone has thrown a few simple tips our way. Last updated: 21 July 2011

['asset']

NEI

Just as we saw similar messages about how to protect ourselves against gas, germ, and nuclear attacks and mailed anthrax, now we have this latest missive about dealing with the sniper who has been terrorizing the Washington, D.C., area since October 2, killing nine victims and wounding two others.

Triton 'Tankless' Scuba Mask -- Real or Vaporware?

['A fund-raising campaign for the Triton mask that will supposedly allowdivers to breathe underwater without the use of air tanks was withdrawn.']

In November 2013, South Korean designer Jeabyun Yeon unveiled his concept for a "Portal Oxygen Respirator" dubbed Triton, a device that would allow people to breather underwater "simply by biting it," at theSamsung Art and Design Institute (SADI)graduation exhibition: South Korean designer Jeabyun Yeon just unveiled a conceptual scuba mask that would allow divers to breathe underwater without air tanks. The mask, called the Triton, consists of two branching arms designed to serve as "gills" that extract oxygen from the water and deliver breathable air directly into their wearer's lungs. Instead of hauling around heavy scuba equipment, swimmers could simply bite down on a plastic mouth piece. Yeon's concept proved popular, and in March 2014 the web siteInhabitat published an article about the nifty design. Whilethat article correctly described the Triton as a "conceptual scuba mask" and noted that "the design is just a concept" that may "someday be turned into a commercial product," the article'sheadline ("Triton Scuba Mask Transforms Divers into Human Fish") misled some readers into believing that the Triton was a fully developed, workable, real product. headline An IndieGogo page dedicated to raising funds for the project explains how the Triton gills supposedly work: Triton employs cutting-edge technology to produce 'artificial gills'. TheMicroporous Hollow Fiber makesbreathing underwater possible. The holes of the threads are smaller than water molecules, they keepwater out and let oxygen in. The micro compressor then extracts and stores the oxygen allowing youto breathe naturally and revel in your underwater freedom. We are using a very powerful modified micro compressor, it compresses oxygen and stores the extracted oxygen in a storage tank.The micro compressor operates through a powerful modified lithium-ion battery. However, as more skeptical reports have noted, the Triton is far more concept than product, and not necessarily a concept that will ever be realizable: skeptical I'm not sold on the Triton. My biggest issue with it is that it would just have to filter so much water to provide all the oxygen a human needs for a single breath. The average human need 500mls of air with every breath; going in, the air has a 21% oxygen concentration and a 16% concentration coming out, for a total of ~25mls of oxygen intake with every breath. Scientific literature places the concentration of oxygen at 6mg/L of ocean water so the Triton would have to go through ... about 6L of water for each breath (assuming our lungs can scrub almost all the oxygen in the air which they don't)? I dont really think it can do that. That being said, finding a way to take oxygen out of seawater is a great idea. But Yeon needs to make this thing go through a lot of sea water very fast before it's actually usable for diving Yeonuploaded a videoon 20 February 2016 supposedly showing a working prototype of a set of Triton gills, but given the number of cuts in the video (such that the diver is never seen fully underwater for an extended period of time and could simply be holding his breath), it's not possible to determine if the product shown actually works as claimed: After the release of the promotional video, more articles expressed some of the same doubts about the viability of such a device, and more: articles There are several raised by experts and commentators about the device: 1) The device has to be able to extract enough oxygen from the water to allow you to actually breath. This is possible in theory however as pointed out in an article on Deep Sea News in 2014 (when the device first came to light as a concept) it requires not only an incredibly efficient ability to extract the oxygen which the designers say is down to a new Microporous Hollow Fiber but also water has to be forced through the device at upward of five liters every 15 seconds which could only be achieved with a pump bigger than the whole Triton design. 2) Next is the issue of storing the gas in a chamber this would require a compressor and battery "order of magnitude more efficient than anything on the market today". The makers claim on the website that they have a "very powerful modified micro compressor" but again without any real proof. 3) Let's say theyve managed to crack those two issues the next one is the ability to deliver the oxygen to you in the right amount at the right pressure to be able to breathe. This is possible as we see it in open-circuit Scuba systems and in Closed Circuit Rebreathers however, again, there is no technology on the market right now that can achieve such a feat in such a small design. 4) Finally there is the video, on face value it looks like there is a working unit, however on close inspection you can see that it is made up of several short clips where the person seems to be getting progressively more negatively buoyant (probably due to expelling air from their lungs to create the "bubbles" from the device) and no clip ever shows a person underwater for longer than one minute. As we know from Freediving that is not even a difficult breath-hold for most people. All-in-all the possibility of a device such as Triton is not beyond the realm of possibility at some point; sadly, though, the challenges faced by the designers just do not seem to be reasonably solved with technology available today. The designers would have had to have developed 3 or 4 incredibly efficient and compact new technologies to make this possible. Other commentators began question whether the Indiegogo campaign to fund development of the Triton gill device might not be a scam, given the extreme scientific unlikelihood that such a device could be built with existing technology and the lack of evidence for Triton's having produced anything beyond a mere concept: scam Right now, an Indiegogo campaign for a device that its makers claim is "the future of underwater breathing" is raking in cash more than $600,000 at the time of this post, $100,000 of which poured in over just 24 hours. It's easy to see the appeal of the handheld device, called the "Triton." Diving equipment is heavy and complicated. Meanwhile, the Triton looks seductively simple and the campaign says it "allows you to breathe underwater." But despite the slick crowdfunding campaign, there's no real evidence that this device actually works, multiple experts told Tech Insider. One of them is Neal Pollock, a research associate at the Center for Hyperbaric Medicine and Environmental Physiology at Duke University Medical Center, and the research director for the Divers Alert Network a non-profit organization that helps divers in medical emergencies and promotes dive safety. "In concept it sounds very good and it's very exciting," Pollock tells Tech Insider, but "I would not encourage anyone pulling out a wallet." For the makers of Triton to prove they've invented a device that can actually do what they say it can, Pollock and other experts want to see more evidence; the crowdfunding campaign and Triton website simply don't provide enough to go on. Regardless, Pollock notes the technological challenges involved in creating a device like Triton are so vast that "it's not realistic, it's science fiction." On 1 April 2016, Triton published an update announcing the release of a new video showing the product in action. They also disclosed that the Triton requires the use of 'liquid oxygen' cylinders, and that they had decided to refund the donations of all the backers who had contributed to so far and launch a new campaign: update video Inside of each Triton, the artificial gills utilize liquid oxygen, which combined with the other components allow users to breathe underwater, which you can see in the video above. We will release more information about the liquid oxygen cylinders and safety strap. Note that the liquid oxygen cylinders wont last forever so we plan to make it possible for backers to purchase and exchange cylinders through our website. They will come in packs of 1, 3 and 5, and well list prices as soon as they are finalized. Were also working on a solution to make them refillable. We wanted to share it at the beginning of the campaign but were hesitant because we also wanted to protect our intellectual property. Our success and the positive comments we have received have made it clear that these details are important for our backers to understand. We launched this campaign to build a community of people who are excited to bring Triton to life, and we are committed to making sure our backers feel confident in our efforts. After careful consideration and in light of this new information, we have decided to refund all Triton backers and launch a brand new campaign.

['funds']

False

Yeon's concept proved popular, and in March 2014 the web siteInhabitat published an article about the nifty design. Whilethat article correctly described the Triton as a "conceptual scuba mask" and noted that "the design is just a concept" that may "someday be turned into a commercial product," the article'sheadline ("Triton Scuba Mask Transforms Divers into Human Fish") misled some readers into believing that the Triton was a fully developed, workable, real product.However, as more skeptical reports have noted, the Triton is far more concept than product, and not necessarily a concept that will ever be realizable:After the release of the promotional video, more articles expressed some of the same doubts about the viability of such a device, and more:Other commentators began question whether the Indiegogo campaign to fund development of the Triton gill device might not be a scam, given the extreme scientific unlikelihood that such a device could be built with existing technology and the lack of evidence for Triton's having produced anything beyond a mere concept:On 1 April 2016, Triton published an update announcing the release of a new video showing the product in action. They also disclosed that the Triton requires the use of 'liquid oxygen' cylinders, and that they had decided to refund the donations of all the backers who had contributed to so far and launch a new campaign:

Most Valuable Brand Names

["What are the world's most valuable brand names?"]

Claim: The three most valuable brand names on Earth are Marlboro, Coca-Cola, and Budweiser, in that order. OUTDATED Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2001] I saw this statement in an e-mail. Is this true? "The 3 most valuable brand names on earth: Marlboro, Coca-Cola, and Budweiser, in that order." Origins: The value of a recognized brand name is both difficult to estimate and difficult to overestimate. Certainly, companies with long-established, widely recognized brand names do not overestimate their value, spending millions of dollars on advertising every year not to directly promote sales of specific products but simply to keep their brand names in front of the public. So, of all the millions of brands in the world, which ones are at the top of the heap? Which companies have been the most successful at constantly nurturing their brands to keep pace in a rapidly changing world? A long-circulated bit of Internet trivia attempts to surprise readers by informing them that the "three most valuable brand names on Earth" are ones they wouldn't necessarily peg for the very highest spots, namely Marlboro, Coca-Cola, and Budweiser. But that tidbit was gleaned from brand rankings produced back in the 1990s, and a good deal has changed in the business world since then. Assigning comparative values to brand names is a process that involves a number of subjective elements, so brand rankings vary depending on who is doing the ranking and what criteria they use. One of the most prominent organizations in this field is Interbrand, a global branding consultancy that, among its other business activities, assigns values to brand names and publishes an annual list of brand name rankings, subject to some qualifications: Interbrand. There are several criteria for inclusion in Interbrand's annual Best Global Brands report. The brand must be truly global and needs to have successfully transcended geographic and cultural boundaries. It must have expanded across the established economic centers of the world and be establishing a presence in the major markets of the future. In measurable terms, this requires that: At least 30 percent of revenues must come from outside the brand's home region. It must have a presence in at least three major continents, as well as broad geographic coverage in emerging markets. There must be sufficient publicly available data on the brand's financial performance. Economic profit must be expected to be positive over the longer term, delivering a return above the brand's operating and financing costs. The brand must have a public profile and awareness above and beyond its own marketplace. These requirements—that a brand be global, visible, and relatively transparent in financial results—lead to the exclusion of some well-known brands that might otherwise be expected to appear in the ranking. The Mars and BBC brands, for example, are privately held and do not have publicly available financial data. Walmart, although it does business in international markets, often does so under a variety of brands and, therefore, does not meet Interbrand's global requirements. Interbrand's 2013 ranking of the Best Global Brands finds that things have changed considerably since the days when Coca-Cola, Marlboro, and Budweiser held down the top spots on the "most valuable brand name" charts, however. According to Interbrand, Coca-Cola is still in a strong third-place position, but Budweiser has slipped all the way down to #31, and Marlboro no longer appears in Interbrand's top 100 at all (possibly due to Marlboro's lack of a social media presence). Best Global Brands social media Millward Brown's BrandZ 2013 list of the "Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands," which is more inclusive than Interbrand's and is based on a database of feedback from millions of consumers and professionals, shows the Coca-Cola and Marlboro brands still close to the top at #5 and #8, respectively, with Budweiser midway down at #34. Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands A comparison of the two organizations' most recent rankings shows a good deal of similarity in the top seven spots: Interbrand (2013) Brandz (2013) #1 Apple #1 Apple #2 Google #2 Google #3 Coca-Cola #3 IBM #4 IBM #4 McDonald's #5 Microsoft #5 Coca-Cola #6 General Electric #6 AT&T #7 McDonald's #7 Microsoft But Mark Ritson, writing for MarketingWeek, noted that the different approaches employed by Interbrand and BrandZ can also produce some quite disparate results: The two most well-regarded brand valuations are provided by Millward Brown's BrandZ Top 100 and Interbrand's Best Global Brands list. Both produce the same thing: a ranking of the 100 most valuable brands in the world, and each year we get to see their latest assessments. The problem for the two companies involved, and marketers in general, is how far apart their annual estimates of brand value tend to be. For example, in 2010, BrandZ estimated the value of the Google brand to be $114 billion, making it by far the world's most valuable brand and suggesting that approximately 75% of the overall market capitalization of Google can be attributed to its brand value. In contrast, Interbrand valued Google's brand at $44 billion in 2010, well behind brands like Coke, IBM, and Microsoft. That's more than a minor difference of opinion with BrandZ—that's a $70 billion worth of disagreement. Or, to put it in perspective, the combined 2010 brand values of Porsche, Barclays, Audi, VW, HSBC, Ford, Nike, Burberry, and Pepsi. The vast $70 billion difference is not derived from a difference of philosophy; both Millward Brown and Interbrand calculate the value of a brand the same way. Both firms also have access to the same financial data for each brand. The difference comes from the method each uses to estimate a brand's overall strength. BrandZ uses its own internal survey of "2 million consumers in 30 different countries" to assess brand strength. Interbrand relies on its "pool of global experts from over 40 countries" who each complete a 10-item assessment of every brand's strength. Additional information: Best Global Brands (2013) (Interbrand) Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands (2013) (BrandZ) Last updated: 18 October 2013

['profit']

True

Assigning comparative values to brand names is a process that involves a number of subjective elements, so brand rankings vary depending upon who is doing the ranking and what criteria they use. One of the most prominent organizations in this field is Interbrand, a global branding consultancy that (among their other business activities) assigns values to brand names and publishes an annual list of brand name rankings, subject to some qualifications:Interbrand's 2013 ranking of the Best Global Brands finds that things have changed considerably since the days when Coca-Cola, Marlboro, and Budweiser held down the top spots on the "most valuable brand name" charts, however. According to Interbrand, Coca-Cola is still in a strong third-place position, but Budweiser has slipped all the way down to #31, and Marlboro no longer appears in Interbrand's top 100 at all (possibly due to Marlboro's lack of a social media presence).Millward Brown's BrandZ 2013 list of the "Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands," which is more inclusive than Interbrand's and is based on a database of feedback from millions of consumers and professionals, shows the Coca-Cola and Marlboro brands still close to the top at #5 and #8, respectively, with Budweiser midway down at #34. Best Global Brands (2013) (Interbrand) Top 100 Most Valuable Global Brands (2013) (BrandZ)