Datasets:

1-800-SHARED-TASKS

/

COLING-2025-FINNLP-FMD

like 2

Follow

1-800-Shared-Tasks 33

Was a law passed by Missouri Republicans that reduced the St. Louis minimum wage from $10 to $7.70?

["Missouri's Republican-controlled state legislature passed a law in May 2017 rolling back a minimum wage increase enacted by the city of St. Louis."]

In mid-2018, a meme widely shared on social media decried the passage of legislation by Missouri Republicans that allegedly lowered the minimum wage in St. Louis from $10 to $7.70. The $2.30 reduction in pay, the viral graphic warned, would harm more than 35,000 workers and their families. Although the subject matter was already a year old by the time the meme was brought to our attention (the legislative change didn't "just" happen), it describes an event that really did occur. What it lacks, obviously, is context. The minimum wage is a perennial topic of debate in American politics. Although public opinion polls indicate general bipartisan support for minimum wage increases perceived as reasonable, partisan disagreement remains not only over what constitutes a reasonable minimum wage level but also over who should set it (local, state, or federal governments) and whether or not it should even exist. Proponents say a minimum wage is necessary to ensure livable earnings for workers with the least bargaining power. A minimum wage that is at least indexed to inflation, they argue, reduces wage inequality, injects money into the economy, and creates jobs by increasing consumer spending. Opponents argue that a too-high minimum wage hurts businesses and increases unemployment by forcing employers to lay off workers they can't afford. It also shuts younger and unskilled workers out of the workforce, they claim, because employers are unwilling to pay them higher wages. As of 2017, the U.S. federal minimum wage stood at $7.25 an hour, an amount that hadn't budged in eight years despite increases in the cost of living. For that reason, at least 29 states (including Missouri) had established statewide minimum wages above the federal floor. Individual cities and counties took action as well, in many cases adopting local ordinances that raised minimum wages even higher than those set by their states. One place this latter action occurred was St. Louis, Missouri, where city officials decided in 2015 that the minimum hourly wage needed to be raised to $10 ($2.30 above the state-mandated minimum of $7.70), with another increase (to $11) set to go into effect in 2018. The ordinance, which did not apply to small businesses employing fewer than 15 workers or grossing less than $500,000 a year, was intended to raise the standard of living for the lowest wage earners in a city where the poverty rate was twice the national average, according to a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The increase in St. Louis will give an immediate raise to an estimated 35,000 workers who will make, on average, $2,400 more each year, said Paul Sonn, general counsel for the National Employment Law Project, a nonprofit that advocates for a higher minimum wage. That is enough to make a real difference for a waitress or a nursing home worker who is trying to get by on less than $18,000 a year. Though its implementation was delayed for two years because of legal challenges by business groups, St. Louis's $10 wage floor finally took effect in May 2017, instantly adding an average of $200 a month to the incomes of tens of thousands of workers. Missouri Governor Eric Greitens, a Republican, had been opposed to the increase all along, arguing that it would "kill jobs" and "take money out of people's pockets." A Republican lawmaker, Jason Chipman, introduced a bill (HB 1194) that would preempt local minimum wage laws everywhere in the state. Days after the St. Louis ordinance went into effect, the Republican-dominated Missouri legislature passed the preemption bill in a party-line vote, effectively overriding the local ordinance. When the bill became law at the end of August, St. Louis's minimum wage reverted to $7.70, the same as the state's. Some disagreement remains over how many workers were actually affected by the changes in St. Louis's minimum wage. The meme cited a number (35,000 workers) taken from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which attributed the estimate to the nonprofit National Employment Law Project (NELP). However, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis came up with a different estimate based on a distinction between resident and non-resident minimum-wage workers. Observing that "only one-third of the workers in St. Louis City are city residents, and less than half of the city workers earning less than $10 per hour are residents," the researchers calculated that approximately 20,000 St. Louis residents saw an impact on their earnings. Including non-residents, they estimated that around 32,500 workers were affected, a slightly lower number than that estimated by NELP. On 1 January 2018, Missouri increased its statewide minimum wage by 15 cents, to $7.85 per hour. In May, a ballot initiative was proposed to raise the minimum wage to $8.60 in 2019 and an additional 85 cents per year thereafter until it reaches $12 by 2023.

['economy']

True

The minimum wage is a perennial topic of debate in American politics. Although public opinion polls indicate general bipartisan support for minimum wage increases perceived as reasonable, partisan disagreement remains not only over what constitutes a reasonable minimum wage level, but over who should set it (local, state, or federal governments), and whether or not it should even exist.As of 2017, the U.S. federal minimum wage stood at $7.25 an hour, an amount that hadn't budged in eight years despite increases in the cost of living. For that reason, at least 29 states (including Missouri) had established state-wide minimum wages above the federal floor. Individual cities and counties took action as well, in many cases adopting local ordinances that raised minimum wages even higher than those set by their states.The ordinance, which did not apply to small businesses employing fewer than 15 workers or grossing less than $500,000 a year, was intended to raise the standard of living for the lowest wage earners in a city where the poverty rate was twice the national average, according to a report in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch:Missouri governor Eric Greitens, a Republican, had been opposed to the increase all along, arguing that it would "kill jobs" and "take money out of people's pockets." A Republican lawmaker, Jason Chipman, introduced a bill (HB 1194) that would pre-empt local minimum wage laws everywhere in the state. Days after the St. Louis ordinance went into effect, the Republican-dominated Missouri legislature passed the pre-emption bill in a party line vote, effectively overriding the local ordinance. When the bill became law at the end of August, St. Louis's minimum wage reverted to $7.70, the same as the state's.Some disagreement remains over how many workers were actually affected by the changes in St. Louis's minimum wage. The meme cited a number (35,000 workers) taken from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, which attributed the estimate to the non-profit National Employment Law Project (NELP). However, researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis came up with a different estimate based on a distinction between resident and non-resident minimum-wage workers. Observing that "only one-third of the workers in St. Louis City are city residents, and less than half of the city workers earning less than $10 per hour are residents," the researchers calculated that approximately 20,000 St. Louis residents saw an impact on their earnings. Including non-residents, they estimated that around 32,500 workers were affected, a slightly lower number than that estimated by NELP.On 1 January 2018, Missouri increased their statewide minimum wage by 15 cents, to $7.85 per hour. In May, a ballot initiative was proposed to raise the minimum wage to $8.60 in 2019 and an additional 85 cents per year thereafter, until it reaches $12 by 2023.

Idaho clergy members compelled to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies

['Rumor: Two Idaho pastors were threatened with arrest for refusing to perform gay weddings.']

Claim: Two Idaho pastors were threatened with legal action and arrests for refusing to perform gay weddings. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Facebook has a Fox News Radio article about a couple, Don and Evelyn Knapp, that own an Idaho wedding chapel and are supposedly facing arrest if they don't perform same sex marriages. Is this for real? Are officials in Coeur d'Alene, Idaho, forcing Christian ministers to perform same sex marriage against their religious beliefs? What has happened to "separation of church and state"? Does it now only apply to churches preaching against orruption in government? Has the First Amendment been rewritten so that the state can now dictate religious beliefs and practices? Origins: On 18 October 2014, the Christian legal advocacy group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release that they were filing a federal lawsuit and a motion for a temporary restraining order on behalf of pastors Donald and Evelyn Knapp of Couer d'Alene, Idaho. According to the announcement, the move was to prevent the city of Couer d'Alene from "forcing [the] two ordained Christian ministers to perform wedding ceremonies for same-sex couples." The ADF's release stated that Donald and Evelyn Knapp faced the threat of jail or exorbitant fines if they refused to officiate gay weddings: City officials told Donald Knapp that he and his wife Evelyn, both ordained ministers who run Hitching Post Wedding Chapel, are required to perform such ceremonies or face months in jail and/or thousands of dollars in fines. The city claims its "non-discrimination" ordinance requires the Knapps to perform same-sex wedding ceremonies now that the courts have overridden Idaho's voter-approved constitutional amendment that affirmed marriage as the union of a man and a woman. "The government should not force ordained ministers to act contrary to their faith under threat of jail time and criminal fines," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. "Many have denied that pastors would ever be forced to perform ceremonies that are completely at odds with their faith, but that's what is happening here and it's happened this quickly. The city is on seriously flawed legal ground, and our lawsuit intends to ensure that this couple's freedom to adhere to their own faith as pastors is protected just as the First Amendment intended." On 14 October 2014, three days prior to the ADF's press release, the Idaho state government had announced that they would no longer oppose the issuance of marriage licenses to same-sex couples, prompting a number of same-sex couples to obtain licenses and marry in the days immediately following the state's announcement: The marriages came a day after Gov. Butch Otter and Attorney General Lawrence Wasden, Republicans who had fought to maintain the state's ban on gay marriage, ended their opposition to a ruling from the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that ordered the state to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. The localized battle in Idaho received national attention on 20 October 2014, when Fox News opinion columnist Todd Starnes published an article about the ADF's lawsuit on behalf of the Knapps: According to the lawsuit, the wedding chapel is registered with the state as a "religious corporation" limited to performing "one-man-one-woman marriages as defined by the Holy Bible." But the chapel is also registered as a for-profit business not as a church or place of worship and city officials said that means the owners must comply with a local nondiscrimination ordinance. A Couer dAlene deputy city attorney reportedly said on local television that for-profit wedding chapels could not legally turn away a gay couple without risking a misdemeanor citation, and that the Hitching Post "would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance." The Knapps maintain that the City Attorneys office made the same assertion in telephone conversations with them, while the city claims they never threatened to take any legal action against the couple. The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows: discovery cached The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We also perform wedding ceremonies of other faiths as well as civil weddings. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier: description The Hitching Post specializes in small, short, intimate, and private weddings for couples who desire a traditional Christian wedding ceremony. We believe that every wedding is special and realize how important this day is to those who walk through our doors. The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions: PDF Notwithstanding any other provision herein, nothing in this Chapter is intended to alter or abridge other rights, protections, or privileges secured under state and/or federal law. This ordinance shall be construed and applied in a manner consistent with First Amendment jurisprudence regarding the freedom of speech and exercise of religion. This chapter does not apply to: Religious corporations, associations, educational institutions, or societies. Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice: reported The Hitching Post wants the city to pay them for wages lost during the time they thought the city was going to force them to perform weddings. The Hitching Post made their stance on gay marriage very clear last year when the initial ban was overturned. Last May they said they would close their doors if they were forced to perform same sex marriages. The Hitching Post now wants the city to pay them for the days the chapel shut down even though they did so by choice. The business also says it lost customers and received hate mail because of media attention. However, the city said they have made it clear the Hitching Post is classified as a "religious organization" and is exempt, whether it's for profit or not. City spokesperson Keith Erickson wrote in a statement that the city "never threatened any legal action against the Hitching Post, nor does it intend to do so." A 2 April 2015 news article added that the chapel closures cited by the Knapps in their suit against the city included days on which same-sex marriage had not yet been legalized in Idaho: Boise-based attorney Kirtlan Naylor wrote in the city's legal response, that while the Knapps claim they lost income when they closed the Hitching Post because they would be in violation of the ordinance, they never allege "that they had any weddings scheduled on those dates, or that anybody came to their business requesting a wedding on those dates." "More so, same-sex marriage was not legal in Idaho on Oct. 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 14," the motion states. "Additionally, on Oct. 15, 2014, when same-sex marriage became legal, Plaintiffs would not have been subject to the ordinance because they were exempt. Therefore, they were under no legitimate threat of prosecution which would require them to close their business on that date." According to the Hitching Post owners' complaint, the Knapps closed their business due to "a constant state of fear that they would be arrested and prosecuted if they declined to perform a same-sex ceremony." However, the article referenced above also reiterated a city spokesman's statement that officials "have never threatened to jail them, or take legal action of any kind" against them. Last updated: 7 July 2015 Starnes, Todd. "City Threatens to Arrest Ministers Who Refuse to Perform Same-Sex Weddings." Fox News. 20 October 2014.

['income']

NEI

The difference between churches and businesses is at the heart of the Couer d'Alene ministers' legal dispute, and one eagle-eyed blogger made a compelling discovery in respect to that delineation, noticing that a cached version of theKnapp's "Hitching Post" web site described their services as follows:At some point in time around Idaho's issuance of same-sex wedding licenses on 15 October and the ADF's press release on 18 October 2014, the Knapps altered the copy on their web site. As of 20 October 2014, the "About" description on the site no longer included references to the civil and non-denominational services that it had displayed just a few days earlier:The ordinance under which the Knapps maintained their religious freedoms were restricted [PDF], issued by the city of Couer d'Alene on 4 June 2014, exempted "religious corporations" from its provisions:Although the City of Couer d'Alene agreed that the Hitching Post was exempted from the anti-discrimination ordinance, the Knapps nonetheless forged ahead with a lawsuit against the jurisdiction. In March 2015, Couer d'Alene television station KXLY reported that the Knapps were maintaining that the city ordinance had cost them money, despite the fact that they had closed their business' doors by choice:

Did WaPo Headline Call IS Leader al-Baghdadi an 'Austere Religious Scholar'?

['The Washington Post was criticized for an online obituary headline about al-Baghdadi. ']

On Oct. 27, 2019, U.S. President Trump announced the death of Islamic State (IS) leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. As news outlets quickly reported on the terrorist leader's death, the Washington Post published an obituary that labeled al-Baghdadi an "austere religious scholar." Screenshots of this obituary headline were widely shared on social media, accompanied by criticism of the news outlet. Former White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer, for instance, posted the following message on Twitter: "Stop, read this & think about it: last night a ruthless, brutal terrorist who threatened our country and is responsible for the death of American citizens was killed in a successful operation by the U.S. military, and @washingtonpost described #Albagdadi as an austere religious scholar." This is a genuine headline that briefly appeared on Washingtonpost.com. An archived version of the article can be found here. The headline was on the Washington Post's website for about two hours. The story was published at 8:31 a.m. CDT, according to the article's timestamp. This headline was changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48" at about 10:35 a.m., according to archived links from the Internet Wayback Machine. Kristine Coratti Kelly, the vice president and communications general manager of Washington Post Live, posted a message on Twitter stating that the headline "should never have read that way." Regarding our al-Baghdadi obituary, she said, "the headline should never have read that way, and we changed it quickly." The qualms over the Washington Post's headline likely inspired a meme targeting another "mainstream media" outlet, CNN. Some social media users began sharing an image that supposedly showed a screenshot from a CNN broadcast about al-Baghdadi's death featuring the chyron "Trump Kills Unarmed Father of Three." For the record, while the Washington Post briefly published a headline for al-Baghdadi's obituary labeling him a religious scholar, the above-displayed chyron is a digital manipulation featuring a years-old image of Don Lemon that never aired on CNN. Warrick, Joby. "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Extremist Leader of Islamic State, Dies at 48." The Washington Post. 27 October 2019.

['share']

True

Stop, read this & think about it: last night a ruthless, brutal terrorist who threatened our country & is responsible for the death of American citizens was killed in a successful operation by US military & @washingtonpost described #Albagdadi as an austere religious scholar pic.twitter.com/Mjptm0Fa3Z Sean Spicer (@seanspicer) October 27, 2019This is a genuine headline that briefly appeared on Washingtonpost.com. An archived version of the article can be found here.The headline appeared on the Washington Post's website for about two hours. The story was published at 8:31 a.m. CDT, according to the article's timestamp. This headline was changed to "Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, extremist leader of Islamic State, dies at 48" at about 10:35 a.m., according to archived links from the Internet Wayback Machine. Kristine Coratti Kelly (@kriscoratti) October 27, 2019For the record, while the Washington Post briefly published a headline for al-Baghdadi's obituary labeling him a religious scholar, the above-displayed chryon is a digital manipulation featuring a years-old image of Don Lemon that never aired on CNN.

Did Sarah Palin Say People with Lyme Disease Should Stop Eating Limes?

['Proposed changes to health care laws revived an old meme attributing a phony quote about Lyme disease to Sarah Palin.']

In May 2017, the Affordable Care Act (more popularly known as Obamacare) returned to the news due to a Congressional vote attempting to change the health insurance law. These developments resurrected a meme that attributed the following quote to former Alaska governor and one-time vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin: "News Obamacare has already made people less responsible for their own health. Like, if you don't want Lyme disease, then don't eat so many limes. Is that so tough?" Although the precise origin of the meme was not immediately apparent, we found that it was published at least as early as June 2014 by Facebook pages such as Republican BS and FreeDumb Nation. The meme bears a faint watermark, which is difficult to spot (it's located in the mid-to-lower right-hand corner of the image) but is associated with the satire page Christians for Michele Bachmann. The same watermark can be more clearly seen on another image created by the same satirical Facebook page (original background art credited to @the_pizzacat on Instagram). Nothing that comes from this page is intended to be taken seriously, including the quote attributed to Palin.

['insurance']

False

In May 2017, the Affordable Care Act (more popularly known as Obamacare) returned to the news thanks to a Congressional vote to attempt to change the health insurance law. Those developments resurrected a meme that attributed the following quote to former Alaska governor and one-time vice presidential candidate, Sarah Palin:Although the precise origin of the meme was not immediately apparent, we were able to find that it was published at least as early as June 2014 by Facebook pages such as Republican BS and FreeDumb Nation:The meme bears a faint watermark, which is difficult to spot (it's located at the mid-to-lower right hand corner or the image) but is associated with the satire page Christians for Michele Bachmann. The same watermark can be more clearly seen on another image created by the same satirical Facebook page (original background art credited to @the_pizzacat on Instagram):

Is Ecosia, the search engine, using its profits to plant trees?

['The search engine claims it has funded the planting of more than 60 million trees. ']

If you browse Snopes.com, you'll likely come across the advice, "If it seems too good to be true, it it probably is" on pages about social media scams. While this platitude is certainly worth considering when browsing the internet, a few exceptions exist. social media scams The Germany-based search engine Ecosia claims to use its profits to plant trees around the world. Its home page even carries a tally of the number of trees that have reportedly been planted by Ecosia users: For many people, this business model may seem "too good to be true" and has led to some skepticism about the legitimacy of this company. A search on Google, for instance, results in several articles and blog posts questioning the legitimacy of the search engine and asking whether Ecosia is a scam. As far as we can tell, Ecosia is a legitimate search engine that truly uses a portion of its profits to help plant trees around the world. Ecosia was launched in 2009 by Christian Kroll. At the time, the search engine was partnered with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) and promised to donate "at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region." WWF announced the partnership in a blog post: blog Those people unable to make it to the Copenhagen Climate Conference this month can still contribute to stopping climate change by using a new search engine from their own computers. The same day the conference begins on Dec. 7, web users can start using a new green search engine called Ecosia. The new application, powered by Yahoo! and Microsofts Bing search engines, will allow internet surfers to protect about 2 square meters of Amazon rainforest just by clicking on sponsored links. Although users do not donate any money themselves, the company behind Ecosia will donate at least 80 percent of its income from sponsored links to WWFs rainforest protection programme in Brazils Juruena-Apui region. The green search engine is a very modern and inventive method of saving the world climate without a huge effort, says WWF Germanys director Eberhard Brandes. Every year billions of dollars are being earned in the internet only from advertising revenue, says Christian Kroll, founder of Ecosia. There is a more eco-friendly way of using these huge profits: the money should better be used to fight global warming. Since 2009, Ecosia has partnered with a number of other environmental organizations. The company reports it uses a portion of its profits to fund these organizations, who in turn work to plant trees around the world. Ecosia makes money the way most other search engines and websites do: through advertising revenue. While this money covers various business expenses, such as advertising and operational costs, Ecosia claims that the majority of its revenue goes toward funding tree-planting projects. Ecosia releases monthly financial reports so users can see exactly how the company is spending its money. The most recent full report comes from July 2019. The following report shows that 52% of its total income (approximately 80% of its surplus revenue) was invested in tree-planting projects; 5% was spent on advertising; 30% was spent on operational costs; and 12% went into company "reserves," which are used to fund larger environmental investments: financial reports We have been unable to independently verify these numbers. However, we checked the websites of several of Ecosia's reported benefactors and found that many of these organizations list Ecosia as one of their partners. Dr. Simon Pfister, managing director of Green Ethiopia, an organization working to grow forests in Ethiopia that received approximately $150,000 from Ecosia in June 2019, told us that Ecosia accurately reported its donation in the company's financial report. Ecosia is also a Certified B Corporation. This means that Ecosia underwent a third-party evaluation that determined the company had an overall positive impact on its workers, community, and environment. According to the company: Ecosia Certified B Corporation. B Corp Certification doesnt just evaluate a product or service; it assesses the overall positive impact of the company that stands behind it. And increasingly thats what people care most about. Certified B Corporations achieve a minimum verified score on the B Impact Assessment a rigorous assessment of a companys impact on its workers, customers, community, and environment and make their B Impact Report transparent on bcorporation.net. Certified B Corporations also amend their legal governing documents to require their board of directors to balance profit and purpose. The combination of third-party validation, public transparency, and legal accountability help Certified B Corps build trust and value. B Corp Certification is administered by the non-profit B Lab. Ecosia lets users plant trees by searching the web. In donating 80 percent of its surplus ad revenue, the search engine has raised almost $3 million for reforestation projects since its founding in December 2009. Ecosia's mission to cultivate a world where the environment doesnt need protecting has it working to plant one billion new trees by the year 2020. By supporting high-impact reforestation efforts as well as neutralising all CO2 emissions related to its search Ecosia aims to achieve the highest positive environmental impact per dollar possible. By publishing its monthly donation receipts online, Ecosia aims to live up to its users demands for transparency. And by working to improve its charitable web service day after day, Ecosia aims to show the world that small changes can make a big difference. In its mission to plant one billion trees by 2020, Ecosia is working with experts and communities to reforest areas of the world that need it most. Sustainable, high-impact planting strategies mean improvements to the environment, local economies and social stability. Ecosia truly uses a large portion of its profits to fund tree planting projects. Of course, for anyone searching for an environmentally friendly search engine, planting trees isn't the only factor to consider. Ecosia is largely powered by Microsoft's Bing search engine. While Microsoft's global operations have been carbon neutral since 2012, the data centers powering Bing don't run entirely on renewable energy. Microsoft is working toward this goal, however, and expects to be driven by 100 percent renewable energy by 2023: Bing 2012 100 percent renewable energy In our data centers, we will continue to focus on R&D for efficiency and renewable energy. In 2016, we announced that we would power our data centers with more renewable energy, setting a 50 percent target by the end of 2018 and topping 60 percent early in the next decade while continuing to improve from there. We hit the first target nearly a year ahead of schedule, and today we are sharing the news that we will reach the 60 percent milestone before the end of this year. Were therefore setting our next milestone on the path to 100 percent renewable energy, aiming to surpass the 70 percent target by 2023. Well also launch a new data-driven circular cloud initiative using the Internet of Things (IoT), blockchain and artificial intelligence (AI) to monitor performance and streamline our reuse, resale and recycling of data center assets, including servers. For comparison's sake, Google announced in 2017 that its search engine was being powered by 100% renewable energy. announced While Microsoft may not be at quite at 100% renewable energy yet, Ecosia claims that its own servers run on clean power thanks to its new solar plant. Additionally, Ecosia's carbon footprint is lessened due to its involvement with various tree-planting projects around the world. The company says: carbon footprint Renewable energy: Did you know that the CO2 footprint of an average search is estimated at 0.2 grams? Not so with Ecosia. We recently built our own solar plant, so that we can run our servers on clean power. This is even better than buying renewable energy from existing plants, as the plant can deliver clean energy to the grid and replace electricity derived from fossil fuels. Carbon-negative: By planting trees and offsetting its energy use with renewables, each search with Ecosia actually removes 1 kg of CO2 from the air, which makes Ecosia a carbon-negative search engine. Heres the math: an average search generates around 0.005 of revenue. It costs roughly 0.25 to plant a tree, which means that Ecosia can plant one tree every 50 searches. On average, these trees will each remove 50 kg of CO2 during an expected 15 year lifetime. To sum up: Ecosia makes money through advertisements on its search engine. While a portion of that money is used to fund the operational costs of the business, about 80% of its surplus revenue is donated to environmental organizations and tree-planting projects around the world. Smith, Brad. "We're Increasing Our CarbonFee as We Double Down on Sustainability." Microsoft. 15 April 2019. Google. "100% Renewable is Just the Beginning." Retrieved 27 August 2019. Ecosia. "Financial Reports and Tree-Planting Receipts." 15 May 2019. World Wildlife Fund. "Clicks to Help Save Amazon." 3 December 2009.

['accountability']

True

If you browse Snopes.com, you'll likely come across the advice, "If it seems too good to be true, it it probably is" on pages about social media scams. While this platitude is certainly worth considering when browsing the internet, a few exceptions exist.WWF announced the partnership in a blog post:Ecosia releases monthly financial reports so users can see exactly how the company is spending its money. The most recent full report comes from July 2019. The following report shows that 52% of its total income (approximately 80% of its surplus revenue) was invested in tree-planting projects; 5% was spent on advertising; 30% was spent on operational costs; and 12% went into company "reserves," which are used to fund larger environmental investments:Ecosia is also a Certified B Corporation. This means that Ecosia underwent a third-party evaluation that determined the company had an overall positive impact on its workers, community, and environment. According to the company:Ecosia truly uses a large portion of its profits to fund tree planting projects. Of course, for anyone searching for an environmentally friendly search engine, planting trees isn't the only factor to consider. Ecosia is largely powered by Microsoft's Bing search engine. While Microsoft's global operations have been carbon neutral since 2012, the data centers powering Bing don't run entirely on renewable energy. Microsoft is working toward this goal, however, and expects to be driven by 100 percent renewable energy by 2023:For comparison's sake, Google announced in 2017 that its search engine was being powered by 100% renewable energy.While Microsoft may not be at quite at 100% renewable energy yet, Ecosia claims that its own servers run on clean power thanks to its new solar plant. Additionally, Ecosia's carbon footprint is lessened due to its involvement with various tree-planting projects around the world. The company says:

What was the reason behind the FBI searching the office of Trump's attorney instead of Bill Clinton's?

['A meme presents a false equivalency between presidential payoffs to women made in completely different cases 20 years apart.']

A popular meme in March 2019 questioned why Bill Clinton had "paid Paula Jones $850K to go away" yet the FBI hadn't raided his lawyer's office. The meme was an obvious reference to two completely unrelated issues separated by decades: a 1994 lawsuit involving Clinton and a search warrant executed by the FBI in April 2018 at the office of President Donald Trump's attorney, Michael Cohen. In short, the major differences in the cases referenced by the meme one of which involved an FBI raid on a lawyer's office and the other not were as follows: Clinton openly paid Jones $850,000 to settle a sexual harassment lawsuit well after he became president and well after Jones had had a chance to air her allegations to the public, press, and court system, while Trump secretly used an intermediary to pay hush money to porn actress Stormy Daniels just ahead of a presidential election in order to keep her allegations that she had an affair with him from reaching the public and influencing the election results against him. Nothing Clinton did in settling Jones' civil lawsuit was illegal (or even potentially illegal), but Trump's payment of hush money to Daniels through his lawyer was possibly an illegal act on the part of Trump and/or Cohen, hence the raid on the latter's office but not the office of Clinton's lawyer. On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying. lawsuit According to Jones, once she entered Clinton's hotel suite he complimented her on her physical appearance, put his hand on her leg, attempted to kiss her on the neck, asked her if she was married, and finally lowered his trousers to expose his erect penis and asked Jones to "kiss it." When Jones rebuffed Clinton's advances, she said, he told her to "keep this between ourselves" and suggested that, in her words, he "could damage her in her job and even jeopardize her employment." Jones did not publicly discuss the incident until The American Spectator referenced it in a January 1994 article, apparently based on information provided by Trooper Ferguson: The American Spectator account asserts that a woman by the name of "Paula" told an unnamed trooper (obviously Defendant Ferguson), who had escorted "Paula" to Clinton's hotel room, that "she was available to be Clinton's regular girlfriend if he so desired," thus implying a consummated and satisfying sexual encounter with Clinton, as well as a willingness to continue a sexual relationship with him. These assertions are untrue. The American Spectator account also asserted that the troopers' 'official' duties included facilitating Clinton's cheating on his wife ... Since Jones ("Paula") was one of the women preyed upon by Clinton and his troopers, including by Defendant Ferguson, in the manner described above, those who read this magazine account could conclude falsely that Jones ("Paula") had a sexual relationship and affair with Clinton. Jones' reputation within her community was thus seriously damaged. Several months later, Jones filed her lawsuit against Clinton and Ferguson, seeking a total of $750,000 in compensation for damages and attorneys' fees on counts of sexual harassment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. The issue of whether Jones could sue a sitting president went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, who upheld an appellate court decision that "the President, like all other government officials, is subject to the same laws that apply to all other members of our society," and allowed Jones' case to proceed. However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case." dismissed When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones. appeal Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment. threatened In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump. reported The following month, Cohen confirmed that $130,000 had been paid to Daniels, but he maintained that he had used his personal funds for the payment, and that "Neither the Trump Organization nor the Trump campaign was a party to the transaction with Ms. Clifford, and neither reimbursed me for the payment, either directly or indirectly." On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump. denied A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign." Rudy Giuliani contradicted In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including five counts of tax evasion, one count of making a false statement to a financial institution, one count of being a "willful cause" of an unlawful corporate contribution, and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution, the latter two stemming from the "hush money" payments made to Daniels and McDougal. Prosecutors held that the payments made by Cohen violated federal campaign finance laws because they were meant to benefit the campaign but did not come from campaign contributions and were not reported to the Federal Election Commission (FEC). The payments therefore constituted illegal in-kind contributions to the Trump campaign that violated laws limiting such donations to $2,700 and requiring their disclosure to the FEC. Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president. legal debate revealed "Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen." Washington Post All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances. federal crimes Dowd, Katie. "Are These the Checks Donald Trump Gave Michael Cohen for the Stormy Daniels Payment?" San Francisco Chronicle. 27 February 2019. Goodman, Ryan and Andy Wright. "Mueller's Roadmap: Major Takeaways from Cohen and Manafort Filings." Just Security. December 8, 2018 Rupar, Aaron. "What's illegal About Trump's Hush Payments to Women, Briefly Explained." Vox. 12 December 2018. Kelly, Matthew. "In-Kind Contributions Are Boring ... Until Stormy Daniels Gets Involved." OpenSecrets.org. 3 April 2018. Lord, Debbie. "Michael Cohen Plea Deal: How Were Campaign Finance Laws Broken?" The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 22 August 2018. Associated Press. "A Timeline of Key Moments in Trump-Stormy Daniels Saga." 4 May 2018. Kirby, Jen. "A Timeline of Trumpworld's Changing Story on Stormy Daniels." Vox. 4 May 2018. Samuels, Brett. "Timeline: Trump, Cohen, Stormy Daniels and $130,000." The Hill. 4 May 2018. Theobald, Bill. "Why Hush Money Michael Cohen Paid Stormy Daniels Was an Illegal Campaign Donation." USA Today. 14 December 2018. Kirby, Jen and Andrew Prokop. "Michael Cohen Pleads Guilty to 8 Federal Crimes." Vox. 21 August 2018. Stewart, Emily and Dylan Matthews. "The Michael Cohen-Stormy Daniels Subplot, Explained." Vox. 27 February 2019. Chalfant, Morgan. "Prosecutors Submit Redacted Cohen Raid Documents Under Seal, Teeing Up Public Release." The Hill. 28 February 2019. Reuters. "Trump Says He Did Not Know About $130,000 Payment to Stormy Daniels." 5 April 2018.

['finance']

False

On 6 May 1994, Jones, a former Arkansas state employee, filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against Clinton just days before the statute of limitations would have expired. In her lawsuit, she maintained that on 8 May 1991, she was working the registration desk at Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock, Arkansas, where the Third Annual Governor's Quality Management Conference was being held, an event Bill Clinton (then governor of Arkansas) attended to deliver a speech. Jones alleged that an Arkansas state trooper, Danny Ferguson, approached her at the registration desk, told her that Clinton would like to meet with her, and escorted her to a business suite in the hotel where Clinton was staying.However, Judge Susan Webber Wright of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas dismissed the lawsuit on 1 April 1998, holding that "the governor's alleged conduct does not constitute sexual assault," that "plaintiff's allegations fall far short of the rigorous standards for establishing a claim of outrage under Arkansas law," that "plaintiff has failed to demonstrate that she has a case worthy of submitting to a jury," and that "there are no genuine issues for trial in this case."When it came to light a few months later that Clinton had lied under oath about his relationship with Monica Lewinsky during proceedings in Jones' lawsuit, Jones filed an appeal to reverse the dismissal and have her claims reinstated. On 13 November 1998, Clinton settled the matter by offering to pay Jones $850,000 in exchange for her agreement to drop her appeal, without admitting to or apologizing for the conduct alleged by Jones.Porn actress Daniels (the stage name of Stephanie Clifford) said she first met Trump at a celebrity golf tournament in Nevada in July 2006. The two engaged in sex in Trump's hotel room, she claimed, and continued an "intimate relationship" into the following year. Daniels discussed her relationship with Trump in a 2011 interview for In Touch magazine, but the interview was not published at that time, reportedly because Trump's personal attorney, Michael Cohen, threatened to sue over it when the magazine reached out to ask for comment.In January 2018, the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump's personal attorney, Cohen, had arranged to pay Daniels $130,000 just weeks before the 2016 U.S. presidential election in exchange for her signing a nondisclosure agreement related to her alleged 2006 affair with Trump.On 5 April 2018, Trump denied to reporters that he knew about the payment to Daniels. When pressed about why the payment had been made, Trump replied, "You'll have to ask Michael Cohen" and asserted he didn't know where the $130,000 had come from. Four days later, acting on a warrant from federal prosecutors in New York's Southern District obtained in part on a referral from special counsel Robert Mueller's office, FBI agents seized a variety of material from Cohen's New York City office, home, and hotel room, including documents related to Cohen's payment to Daniels and to Karen McDougal, another woman who had alleged an affair with Trump.A month later, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, now a member of Trump's legal team, said that Trump had personally repaid Cohen for the $130,000 payment to Daniels, and that the reimbursement had been "funneled through a law firm." The following day, Trump contradicted his earlier claim that he didn't know about the payment by acknowledging that he had repaid Cohen, but he asserted the money "had nothing to do with the campaign."Whether Trump himself could be charged with engaging in a criminal scheme to violate campaign finance laws for his involvement in the hush money payments is still a matter of legal debate, but the issue took a dramatic turn in February 2019 when Cohen revealed before Congress that he was paid reimbursement for the hush money directly from Trump's personal bank account after Trump became president."Cohen's public testimony directly implicates Trump in serious campaign finance violations," former FECGeneral Counsel Lawrence Noble told the Washington Post. "Assuming Cohen is telling the truth about the purpose of the checks, the checks are documentary evidence supporting the allegation that Trump had Cohen pay Daniels $135,000 in hush money and then reimbursed Cohen."All in all, events proved the FBI had good reason to raid Cohen's office, as they gathered evidence of multiple federal crimes (beyond just campaign finance violations) to which Cohen pleaded guilty. Bill Clinton's payment to Paula Jones was a settlement of a civil lawsuit that did not involve any criminal matter or criminal wrongdoing, and thus it was of no legitimate interest to law enforcement. The only commonality between the two cases was that they involved payments by politicians to women, but for very different reasons and circumstances.

Does Donald Trump Have a Statue of Himself in Mar-a-Lago Office?

["A photo of the 45th president's Florida office shared by former aide Stephen Miller on Twitter contains a panoply of curious Trumpian trinkets. "]

On April 5, 2021, former aide to U.S. President Trump Stephen Miller shared a photo on Twitter of the two in Trump's post-presidency, Mar-a-Lago office. As numerous publications and social media users have pointed out, one of the many items seen in the photo is a statue of Trump himself: a photo As numerous publications Indeed, it is hard to come to the conclusion that the statue partially hiding behind Miller's right arm is anything other than a figurine or small statue of Trump: behind Miller's right arm According to Politico, which analyzed several of the items contained in the former president's office, nobody they spoke to was sure where exactly the statue came from: According No sources knew the provenance of this mini-bust of Trump, and a Trump spokesperson didnt share any details about it when asked about it. A former senior White House official said it was most likely a gift that was sent in. Wed get tons of those paintings, statues, etc. Because the statue is present in his office in Mar-a-Lago, we rate this claim as

['share']

True

On April 5, 2021, former aide to U.S. President Trump Stephen Miller shared a photo on Twitter of the two in Trump's post-presidency, Mar-a-Lago office. As numerous publications and social media users have pointed out, one of the many items seen in the photo is a statue of Trump himself:Indeed, it is hard to come to the conclusion that the statue partially hiding behind Miller's right arm is anything other than a figurine or small statue of Trump:According to Politico, which analyzed several of the items contained in the former president's office, nobody they spoke to was sure where exactly the statue came from:

Judge David Kithil's stance on the Affordable Care Act

['Letter from Judge David Kithil provides line-item criticism of health care reform legislation.']

Claim: Letter from Judge David Kithil provides accurate line item criticisms of "Obamacare" health care reform legislation. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] I have reviewed selected sections of the bill and find it unbelievable that our Congress, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, could come up with a bill loaded with so many wrong-headed elements. We do need to reform the health insurance system in America in order to make coverage affordable and available to everyone. But, how many of us believe our federal government can manage a new program any better than the bankrupt Medicare program or the underfunded Social Security program? Both Republicans and Democrats are equally responsible for the financial mess of those two programs. I am opposed to HB 3200 for a number of reasons. To start with, it is estimated that a federal bureaucracy of more than 150,000 new employees will be required to administer HB3200. That is an unacceptable expansion of a government that is already too intrusive in our lives. If we are going to hire 150,000 new employees, let's put them to work protecting our borders, fighting the massive drug problem and putting more law enforcement/firefighters out there." Other problems I have with this bill include: Page 50/section 152: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. Page 58 and 59: The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. Page 65/section 164: The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). Page 203/line 14-15: The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) Page 241 and 253: Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. Page 272. section 1145: Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. Page 317 and 321: The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. Page 425, line 4-12: The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. Page 429, line 13-25: The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. Finally, it is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. Members of Congress are already exempt from the Social Security system and have a well-funded private plan that covers their retirement needs. If they were on our Social Security plan, I believe they would find a very quick "fix" to make the plan financially sound for the future." Honorable David Kithil Marble Falls, Texas. Origins: A number of similar pieces presenting lists of line item criticisms of a pending health care reform bill (H.R. 3200) began circulating on the Internet in mid-2009, and they continue to circulate widely three years later as arguments to oppose the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), commonly known as "Obamacare." The versions of this item that continue to be spread via e-mail forwards and online postings are wrong in nearly every particular, however: Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued Peter Fleckenstein the list as a series of Tweets and posted it to his blog in July 2009. The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress. A completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare." Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan). H.R. 3200 H.R. 3590 Virtually every statement included in this list is exaggerated, misleading, inaccurate, or outright erroneous, as detailed below: The bill will provide insurance to all non-U.S. residents, even if they are here illegally. This is false. The PPACA, as enacted, doesn't "provide insurance" to anyone it institutes some regulations on the insurance industry to make medical insurance more broadly available and affordable to Americans, and it requires that Americans enroll in PPACA-qualified medical plans or pay a penalty, but everyone is still responsible for obtaining (and paying for) their own insurance coverage. Moreover, the section of the unpassed HB 3200 bill referenced in the above statement is 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE, which simply states that "[e]xcept as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act, all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services." It doesn't explicity grant or authorize government funds for providing illegal immigrants with health care or health insurance, and another section of the bill specifically states that "Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States." The government will have real-time access to an individual's bank account and will have the authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts. This is false. The section of HB 3200 referenced here does nothing more than attempt to provide a framework for simplifying the use of electronic payments for health services, emulating the way that many consumers currently use to make a variety of other payments (e.g., utilities, mortgages, credit card balances). The bill simply calls for the secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) to set standards for electronic administrative transactions that would "enable electronic funds transfers, in order to allow automated reconciliation with the related health care payment and remittance advice." Nothing in this section grants the government "real-time access to an individual's bank account" or the "authority to make electronic fund transfers from those accounts." The bill doesn't even require that consumers use an electronic payment system it simply seeks to make that an option for those who want to use it. The plan will be subsidized (by the government) for all union members, union retirees and for community organizations (such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now - ACORN). This statement is misleading, as the section of HB 3200 referenced here is SEC. 164. REINSURANCE PROGRAM FOR RETIREES, which addresses "retirees and ... spouses, surviving spouses and dependents of such retirees" who are covered by "employment-based [health benefit] plans." It does not specifically provide for subsidizing health insurance for "all union members, union retirees and community organizations"; it sets up a new federal reinsurance plan for any retirees and their spouses who are covered by any employer plan, not just those who are covered under plans run by unions or community groups. The reinsurance would be available to any "group health benefits plan that ... is maintained by one or more employers, former employers or employee associations." The tax imposed under this section will not be treated as a tax. (How could anybody in their right mind come up with that?) This statement misleadingly tries to make HB 3200 sound ridiculous by deliberately eliding the end of the statement it quotes. What the bill actually says is that"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax imposed by this chapter for purposes of determining the amount of any credit under this chapter or for purposes of section 55." Section 55 is a reference to the Alternative Minimum Tax, and the purpose of this portion of the bill is to mitigate the effects that new health care-related taxes would have on persons making over $350,000 a year. Doctors will all be paid the same regardless of specialty, and the government will set all doctors' fees. This is false. The section of the bill referenced here is an updating of the physician fee schedule for Medicare services, which neither states that "all doctors will be paid the same regardless of specialty" nor that the "government will set all doctors' fees." All this section does is slightly revise the formula used for determining how much doctors are reimbursed for providing Medicare services, depending upon which of two categories those services fall under. Cancer hospital will ration care according to the patient's age. This is false. The section referenced here is one which does nothing more than call for a study to determine whether certain classes of hospitals incur higher costs than other hospitals for the cancer-related care they deliver, with the aim of providing "an appropriate adjustment [in payments] "to reflect those higher costs." This section in no way "rations care" provided by "cancer hospitals" based on a patient's age (or any other factor); it simply seeks to pay some hospitals more to compensate for their higher costs in treating cancer patients. The government will impose a prohibition on hospital expansion; however, communities may petition for an exception. This is false. As noted by FactCheck, forbids hospital expansion "only for rural, doctor-owned hospitals that have been given a waiver from the general prohibition on self-referral. It does not apply to hospitals in general. The bill provides for exceptions to even this limited expansion ban." The government mandates advance-care planning consultations. Those on Social Security will be required to attend an "end-of-life planning" seminar every five years. This is false. This statement references a much-distorted portion of the bill that would allow for Medicare to cover voluntary counseling sessions for seniors with their doctors to discuss aspects of end-of-life care such as hospice care, DNR orders, life-sustaining treatments, living wills, and the like (a form of counseling not previously covered by Medicare). Nothing about such counseling sessions would be mandatory, for Social Security recipients or anyone else. The government will specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order. This is false. The bill does not "specify which doctors can write an end-of-life order." It merely defines an "end-of-life order" (i.e., an order for life-sustaining treatment) as a document "signed and dated by a physician [that] effectively communicates the individual's preferences regarding life sustaining treatment." It is specifically stated this bill will not apply to members of Congress. This is false. HB 3200 did not contain a provision stating that it would "not apply to members of Congress." The bill likely would have had little or no effect on members of Congress because they belong to a class of federal worker who have the benefit of choosing from a variety of subsidized insurance plans offered through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, but the same requirements for obtaining and having health insurance would have applied to them just as much to other citizens. The version of the PPACA that was actually passed did indeed require lawmakers to give up the insurance coverage previously provided to them through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and instead purchase health insurance through the online exchanges that the law created. Variations: A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76. This claim is covered in a separate article on this site: separate PLEASE PASS THIS OUTRAGE TO EVERYONE ON YOUR LIST!!! THIS should be readby everyone, especially important to those over 75.......If you areyounger, then it applies to your parents. Your hospital Medicare admittance has just change under Obama Care. Youmust be admitted by your primary Physician in order for Medicare to payfor it! If you are admitted by an emergency room doctor it is treated asoutpatient care where hospital costs are not covered. This is only the tipof the iceberg for Obama Care. Just wait to see what happens in 2013 &2014! Age 76 Today, I went to the Dr. for my monthly B12 shot that I have beengetting for a number of years. The nurse came and got me, got out theneedle filled and ready to go then looked at the computer and got veryquiet and asked if I was prepared to pay for it. I said no that myinsurance takes care of it. She said, that Medicare had turned it down and went to talk to my Dr.about it. 15 minutes later she came back and said, she was sorry but theyhad tried everything they could but Medicare is beginning to turn manythings away for seniors because of the projected Obama Care coming in. Shewas brushing at tears and said, "Someday they too will get old", I am sovery sorry!! Please for the sake of many good people ... be informed please.YOU ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE THIS. Last updated: 11 March 2014

['taxes']

False

Although this list is commonly attributed as originating with a letter sent to Senator Evan Bayh of Indiana by Dr. Stephen E. Fraser, an Indianapolis anesthesiologist, or as a letter sent to the River Cities Tribune by David Kithil, a former county judge in Marble Falls, Texas, it is actually the work of Peter Fleckenstein, who issued The bill referenced in this list, America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 (H.R. 3200), was never passed by Congress. A completely different bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), became the basis for what is now known as "Obamacare." Many of the entries in the list are therefore irrelevant and outdated, as they address aspects of health care reform legislation that were never enacted by Congress (particularly the "public option" for a government insurance plan).Variations: A later version of this piece was prefaced with the false claim that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act limits the amount of Medicare coverage provided to those over the age of 75 or 76. This claim is covered in a separate article on this site:

Did Pepsi Donate $100M to Black Lives Matter?

['Not every project related to racial justice is automatically linked to the Black Lives Matter movement.']

In the summer of 2020, readers sent Snopes multiple inquiries about widely shared social media posts claiming that PepsiCo, the company that makes Pepsi, had donated $100 million to the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement. In May 2020, a Black man named George Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, prompting a renewed wave of nationwide and international protests against racial injustice and police brutality. The BLM movement spearheaded much of that protest and debate, and in response, critics of the protests targeted BLM, often deploying false, exaggerated, or distorted allegations. targeted During the summer of 2020, those critics sought to target several major U.S. companies, including PepsiCo, by claiming they had each donated substantial amounts to BLM. Social media posts in July read that: Social media posts BankofAmerica Gave them $1 BILLIONPepsiCo - $400 MILLIONWalmart - $100 MILLIONApple - $100 MILLIONComcast - $100 MILLION Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk alluded to an incident in St. Louis, Missouri, in June 2020, in which local residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey pointed firearms at protesters, writing on Twitter: pointed firearms writing "In America if terrorists show up to your home, you get charged for showing that you own a weapon after they tear down your gate. And the thugs who entered on to your property get $400 million from PepsiCo. as a reward." In August 2020, social media users focused on PepsiCo, and the amount of the company's purported donation to BLM shifted from $400 million to $100 million, for reasons that are unclear, but may have resulted from a misreading of earlier posts that claimed Walmart, Apple, and Comcast had each donated $100 million to BLM. A typical version of the post claimed that: "PEPSI JUST GAVE BLM A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS... PLEASE BOYCOTT PEPSI!" typical version post claimed The August posts that claimed PepsiCo had given $100 million to BLM appeared to have been based on the earlier claims that the company had donated $400 million. In turn, those earlier posts stemmed from an announcement the company made in June 2020. On June 16, PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta wrote: wrote "Today, I am announcing the next step in PepsiCos journey for racial equality: a more than $400 million set of initiatives over five years to lift up Black communities and increase Black representation at PepsiCo. These initiatives comprise a holistic effort for PepsiCo to walk the talk of a leading corporation and help address the need for systemic change." Specifically, the company pledged to spend, over the course of five years: We asked PepsiCo whether it, or any charitable entities associated with the company, had donated to groups or projects associated with BLM, including the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the movement. We also requested a list of any recipients of charitable disbursements from the $400 million investment announced in June. We did not receive a response in time for publication. However, since $415 million was reserved for supporting Black-owned suppliers, restaurants, and small businesses, as well as starting a fellowship program, it was therefore mathematically impossible for $100 million to have been pledged for BLM. The only component of that spending that appears to leave room for any involvement with BLM is the $6.5 million reserved for "community impact grants to address systemic issues." So even if that entire portion of funding went to BLM, it would still constitute only a small fraction of the $100 million and $400 million claimed in social media posts in the summer of 2020. None of those who promoted those claims presented any evidence that linked PepsiCo's pledged investment with specific, named organizations or projects associated with the broader BLM movement or the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. The claim that PepsiCo had donated $100 million (or $400 million) to BLM appeared to be based on a basic misunderstanding of the company's June 2020 announcement or the false assumption that any investment associated with the Black community or rectifying racial injustice must be directly connected to BLM. Laguarta, Ramon. "Pepsico's Journey to Racial Equality: A Message from Our CEO." PepsiCo. 16 June 2020.

['investment']

False

In May 2020, a Black man named George Floyd died in police custody in Minneapolis, Minnesota, prompting a renewed wave of nationwide and international protests against racial injustice and police brutality. The BLM movement spearheaded much of that protest and debate, and in response, critics of the protests targeted BLM, often deploying false, exaggerated, or distorted allegations. During the summer of 2020, those critics sought to target several major U.S. companies, including PepsiCo, by claiming they had each donated substantial amounts to BLM. Social media posts in July read that:Right-wing activist Charlie Kirk alluded to an incident in St. Louis, Missouri, in June 2020, in which local residents Mark and Patricia McCloskey pointed firearms at protesters, writing on Twitter: A typical version of the post claimed that: "PEPSI JUST GAVE BLM A HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS... PLEASE BOYCOTT PEPSI!"The August posts that claimed PepsiCo had given $100 million to BLM appeared to have been based on the earlier claims that the company had donated $400 million. In turn, those earlier posts stemmed from an announcement the company made in June 2020. On June 16, PepsiCo CEO Ramon Laguarta wrote:

Is a Woman the Family 'Breadwinner' for Running a Foster Care Scam?

["The facts just don't add up in this email sent to the Rush Limbaugh Show."]

The item reproduced below originated as an e-mail sent to radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh in July 2010 by Dr. Sebastian J. Ciancio, a urologist practicing in Danville, Illinois. In that e-mail, the doctor encouraged the radio host to "share this story with your listeners so that they know how the ruling class spends their tax dollars." In this example collected from the Snopes inbox in August 2010: I was speaking to an emergency room physician this morning. He told me that a woman in her 20's came to the ER with her 8th pregnancy. She stated "my momma told me that I am the breadwinner for the family." He asked her to explain. She said that she can make babies and babies get money for the family. The scam goes like this: The grandma calls the Department of Children and Family Services and states that the unemployed daughter is not capable of caring for these children. DCFS agrees and states that the child or children will need to go to foster care. The grandma then volunteers to be the foster parent, and thus receives a check for $1500 per child per month in Illinois. Total yearly income: $144,000 tax-free, not to mention free healthcare (Medicaid) plus a monthly "Link" card entitling her to free groceries, etc, and a voucher for 250 free cell phone minutes per month. This does not even include WIC and other welfare programs. Indeed, grandma was correct in that her fertile daughter is the "breadwinner" in the family. Variations: In December 2010 the following photograph was added to circulating versions of this item, even though the pictured family has no connection to the story and no mention of race appeared in the original text: In 2014, the setting was moved from Illinois to Florida. The gist of this "story" is the claim that an Illinois woman who was pregnant with her eighth child (while still in her 20's) admitted to an emergency room physician that she was deliberately having children and giving them up to foster care in order to earn money for her family, with her grandmother volunteering to raise the children and collecting $1,500 per month from the state for each child, for an annual tax-free income of $144,000 (plus additional benefits). Is the story true? It's a second-hand account, and Dr. Ciancio declined to identify the physician who supposedly told it to him, which makes verification of that aspect of the tale difficult. Nonetheless, whatever a pregnant patient may have told an unnamed emergency room physician, the scenario described simply isn't possible. According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for licensed relative home care range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child: payment rates The maximum monthly payment (for a child age 12 and over) is $471 per month, not $1,500 per month, so the largest amount of money a foster parent caring for eight children would receive in a month (assuming all of those children were at least 12 years old) would be $3,768, for an annual total of $45,216 a far cry from the $144,000 yearly income claimed above. (And even the $45,216 figure is a generous projection, given that it's an obvious impossibility for a woman who is pregnant with her eighth child to already have eight children all over the age of twelve.) Pickel, Mary Lou. "Tea Party at the Capitol." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 28 February 2009.

['share']

False

According to payment rates published by the State of Illinois' Department of Children and Family Services (DCFS), monthly payments for licensed relative home care range from $384 to $471 per child, depending upon the age of the child:

Starbucks and Monsanto are taking legal action against the state of Vermont.

['Is Starbucks teaming up with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont for the right to avoid GMO labels?']

Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, a group challenging Vermont over GMO labeling requirements. Starbucks has joined forces with Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over GMO labeling requirements. In November 2014, a petition claiming that coffee giant Starbucks had "teamed up" with agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation Monsanto to sue the state of Vermont over a GMO (genetically modified organism) labeling law began to circulate heavily on social media sites. Given the massive popularity of Starbucks and broad concern over genetically modified foods, the petition caused unease among many Starbucks drinkers about whether their daily latte habit was somehow funding big agribusiness bullies. General consumer discomfort with the often unclear links between large corporations, as well as growing distaste for massive food conglomerates, made the claim particularly unsettling to many social media users. Most consumers lack the luxury to make all their own foods and drinks at home, and to some extent, we all place our trust in large companies to do right by their customers in choosing safe ingredients and not abusing their financial strength by bullying less-powerful entities. A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief that Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission: "We are a movement of consumers, investors, and workers counterbalancing the power of large corporations to forge a just, sustainable path for the global economy." The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website. Hiding behind the Grocery Manufacturers' Association, Starbucks is part of a lawsuit aiming to block a landmark law that requires genetically modified ingredients to be labeled. Amazingly, they are claiming it's an assault on their corporate right to free speech. Even a local Vermont company, Green Mountain Coffee, has joined in. The quoted portion makes it clear that Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a website that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling, which included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members. The petition explains (in essence) why Starbucks has been singled out among GMA-affiliated companies as a target of consumer pressure: "SumOfUs members have already chipped in to support Vermont's legal defense fund, and we need to keep it up. Monsanto might not care what we think, but Starbucks does. If we can generate enough attention, we can push Starbucks to withdraw its support for the lawsuit, and then force other companies to do the same." Sign the petition to tell Starbucks and Green Mountain Coffee to withdraw their support for the lawsuit against Vermont and stop fighting accurate food labeling. Vermont is a small, entirely rural state with just 600,000 people. It's a classic David and Goliath fight—Vermont vs. Monsanto and Starbucks, some of the most powerful corporations in the world. The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on May 8, 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to become the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by July 1, 2016. On June 13, 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing that the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern that more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest. Today, the Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), along with the Snack Food Association, International Dairy Foods Association, and the National Association of Manufacturers, filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont challenging the state's mandatory GMO labeling law. GMA issued the following statement in conjunction with the legal filing: "Vermont's mandatory GMO labeling law—Act 120—is a costly and misguided measure that will set the nation on a path toward a 50-state patchwork of GMO labeling policies that do nothing to advance the health and safety of consumers. Act 120 exceeds the state's authority under the United States Constitution, and in light of this, GMA has filed a complaint in federal district court in Vermont seeking to enjoin this senseless mandate. Act 120 imposes burdensome new speech requirements and restrictions that will affect, by Vermont's count, eight out of every ten foods at the grocery store. Yet Vermont has effectively conceded this law has no basis in health, safety, or science. That is why a number of product categories, including milk, meat, restaurant items, and alcohol, are exempt from the law. This means that many foods containing GMO ingredients will not actually disclose that fact. The First Amendment dictates that when speech is involved, Vermont policymakers cannot merely act as a pass-through for the fads and controversies of the day. It must point to a truly 'governmental' interest, not just a political one. And the Constitution prohibits Vermont from regulating nationwide distribution and labeling practices that facilitate interstate commerce. That is the sole province of the federal government. The U.S. Food & Drug Administration, the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency have both the mandate and expertise to incorporate the views of all the stakeholders at each link in the chain from farm to fork." On November 9, 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On November 15, 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement: "Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling." The statement indicated that Starbucks asked the petition to be edited to reflect their position and lack of involvement in the lawsuit against the state of Vermont: "Starbucks is not a part of any lawsuit pertaining to GMO labeling, nor have we provided funding for any campaign. And Starbucks is not aligned with Monsanto to stop food labeling or block Vermont State law. The petition claiming that Starbucks is part of this litigation is completely false, and we have asked the petitioners to correct their description of our position. Starbucks has not taken a position on the issue of GMO labeling. As a company with stores and a product presence in every state, we prefer a national solution." Grocery Manufacturers Association spokesman Brian Kennedy said that Starbucks is an "affiliate member" of the GMA and is not involved in actions such as the Vermont lawsuit: "As an affiliate member, [Starbucks] is not involved in any policy, governance, or legal work with the Association, which includes the lawsuit in Vermont." In summary, although Starbucks is a member of the Grocery Manufacturers Association, the lawsuit targeted by the petition was initiated by that group and not by Starbucks or Monsanto; and direct collusion between Starbucks and Monsanto on the issue is neither evident nor germane to the dispute between the state of Vermont and the GMA.

['economy']

False

A quick scan of Twitter reveals widespread belief Starbucks has suddenly decided to abandon its socially and nutritionally conscious consumer base to join forces with Monsanto, but is that really the case? Most of the chatter points back to the petition, initiated by a group called SumOfUs. On its Facebook about page, SumOfUs describes its mission:The relevant petition can be found on the SumOfUs website:The quoted portion makes it clear Starbucks isn't the entity driving the lawsuit at which the petition takes aim. The Grocery Manufacturers Association (GMA), a large food industry group of which Starbucks is one of more than 300 members, is the trade organization behind the litigation in question. To call the group "shadowy" is somewhat misleading: GMA has a web site that presents their clear stance on the issue of genetically modified foods and labeling and that included a 2014 membership directory openly listing Starbucks and Monsanto as members. (The online membership directory link is no longer accessible from GMA's web site, and the organization did not respond to our inquiry about it.)The petition references Vermont's Act 120, voted upon in April 2014 and signed into law on 8 May 2014. Under the provisions of the new law, Vermont is poised to became the first state to require labeling of all foods containing genetically modified ingredients by 1 July 2016.On 13 June 2014, the GMA issued a press release stating its intent to challenge the law in Vermont, positing the law was unconstitutional and citing the First Amendment. In its statement, the trade group expressed concern more states would follow Vermont's lead and adversely affect the food industry by imposing labeling standards that serve no health or safety interest:On 9 November 2014, musician Neil Young stated that he was no longer going to patronize Starbucks due to the GMA lawsuit. On 15 November 2014, Starbucks addressed the claims. The coffee chain sent a tweet with a link to a longer statement:Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014Starbucks is not a part of Monsanto's GMO lawsuit to stop food labeling https://t.co/mEsQHqukMA Starbucks News (@Starbucksnews) November 16, 2014

We created a flat tax in the state of Utah.

[]

During the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 11, 2011, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman touted his record on taxes. When he was governor, he said, Utah had historic tax cuts. We created a flat tax in the state of Utah, exactly what needs to happen in this country.This isnt the first time Huntsman has made that claim. Our PolitiFact team in New Hampshirechecked a similar comment Huntsmanmadeat a July 4th, 2011, house party in Belmont, N.H. At that July 4 event, Huntsman said that when he was governor, he worked with the state Legislature to create a flat tax that cut income taxes by 30 percent.Since Huntsman didnt repeat the claim that this tax changes had cut income taxes by 30 percent, we will only rate him now on the question of whether his administration created a flat tax in the state of Utah.When we first reported this item, the Huntsman campaign pointed us to published reports from this spring and from 2007 that explained how Huntsman began pushing for the changes soon after he took office in January 2005.We need a tax policy that is not only friendly to our citizens, but also creates a competitive environment for business. Business as usual will leave us behind our neighboring states, Huntsman said during his first State of the State speech in January 2005.Huntsman and the Legislature achieved their goal with two changes in tax law over two years.When Huntsman took office, there were six income tax brackets ranging from 2.3 percent to 7 percent. Ultimately, Huntsman and the Legislature approved a single rate of 5 percent.This created a much flatter tax, stripping away most of the deductions and credits. Utah taxpayers still adjust their income in ways such as counting interest earned on bond income or deducting from income the withdrawals they make from medical savings accounts.The research arm of the Utah Legislature says this was not a flat tax in the purest sense. Although the new system has a single statutory rate of 5.0 percent, it is not a proportional or 'flat' income tax system. Rather, Utahs new income tax system remains progressive through tax credits,'' said a January 2010 report of the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. (A progressive tax system is one in which richer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poorer people do. )Roughly 90 percent of taxpayers get to claim as a credit from state taxes some of what they claim as deductions and tax exemptions under the federal tax code. The credit phases out and goes away from those making very high incomes in the state.This makes the effective tax rate about 3 percent for Utah taxpayers earning $70,000 a year in 2008 and 4 percent for a household with $100,000 in taxable income, according to the legislative group's analysis.There's no question this is a single rate tax -- but with the credit, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers do not pay 5 percent of their income,'' said Phil Dean, the policy analyst who authored the 2010 study.Anti-tax groups have given Huntsman high marks for the overhaul and have said they consider it to be a flat tax.The libertarian Cato Institute gave Huntsman the highest score of any governor on tax policy in 2006. Likewise, the Club for Growth praised Huntsman's tax reform while adding there were some minor blemishes' that included other tax increases during his tenure. (It's worth noting that both groups fault Huntsman for increases in state spending that occurred under his watch. )While we gave Huntsman a Mostly False for his previous statement, most of our downgrade stemmed from our criticism of his claim that his policies cut income taxes by 30 percent. The system he and the Legislature enacted in Utah wasnt a pure flat tax, since taxpayers may still make adjustments for certain financial factors. But it is a flatter tax, and it includes one major defining factor of a flat tax -- a single rate for all income groups. On balance, we rate his claim Mostly True.

['National', 'Taxes']

True

During the Republican presidential debate in Ames, Iowa, on Aug. 11, 2011, former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman touted his record on taxes. When he was governor, he said, Utah had historic tax cuts. We created a flat tax in the state of Utah, exactly what needs to happen in this country.This isnt the first time Huntsman has made that claim. Our PolitiFact team in New Hampshirechecked a similar comment Huntsmanmadeat a July 4th, 2011, house party in Belmont, N.H. At that July 4 event, Huntsman said that when he was governor, he worked with the state Legislature to create a flat tax that cut income taxes by 30 percent.Since Huntsman didnt repeat the claim that this tax changes had cut income taxes by 30 percent, we will only rate him now on the question of whether his administration created a flat tax in the state of Utah.When we first reported this item, the Huntsman campaign pointed us to published reports from this spring and from 2007 that explained how Huntsman began pushing for the changes soon after he took office in January 2005.We need a tax policy that is not only friendly to our citizens, but also creates a competitive environment for business. Business as usual will leave us behind our neighboring states, Huntsman said during his first State of the State speech in January 2005.Huntsman and the Legislature achieved their goal with two changes in tax law over two years.When Huntsman took office, there were six income tax brackets ranging from 2.3 percent to 7 percent. Ultimately, Huntsman and the Legislature approved a single rate of 5 percent.This created a much flatter tax, stripping away most of the deductions and credits. Utah taxpayers still adjust their income in ways such as counting interest earned on bond income or deducting from income the withdrawals they make from medical savings accounts.The research arm of the Utah Legislature says this was not a flat tax in the purest sense. Although the new system has a single statutory rate of 5.0 percent, it is not a proportional or 'flat' income tax system. Rather, Utahs new income tax system remains progressive through tax credits,'' said a January 2010 report of the Utah Office of Legislative Research and General Counsel. (A progressive tax system is one in which richer people pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes than poorer people do.)Roughly 90 percent of taxpayers get to claim as a credit from state taxes some of what they claim as deductions and tax exemptions under the federal tax code. The credit phases out and goes away from those making very high incomes in the state.This makes the effective tax rate about 3 percent for Utah taxpayers earning $70,000 a year in 2008 and 4 percent for a household with $100,000 in taxable income, according to the legislative group's analysis.There's no question this is a single rate tax -- but with the credit, the overwhelming majority of taxpayers do not pay 5 percent of their income,'' said Phil Dean, the policy analyst who authored the 2010 study.Anti-tax groups have given Huntsman high marks for the overhaul and have said they consider it to be a flat tax.The libertarian Cato Institute gave Huntsman the highest score of any governor on tax policy in 2006. Likewise, the Club for Growth praised Huntsman's tax reform while adding there were some minor blemishes' that included other tax increases during his tenure. (It's worth noting that both groups fault Huntsman for increases in state spending that occurred under his watch.)While we gave Huntsman a Mostly False for his previous statement, most of our downgrade stemmed from our criticism of his claim that his policies cut income taxes by 30 percent. The system he and the Legislature enacted in Utah wasnt a pure flat tax, since taxpayers may still make adjustments for certain financial factors. But it is a flatter tax, and it includes one major defining factor of a flat tax -- a single rate for all income groups. On balance, we rate his claim Mostly True.

Is Six Flags Closing Their Theme Parks to the Public to Host 'Muslim Family Day?'

['Six Flags theme parks host a number of different events every year. ']

In September and October 2015, a flyer for an event called "Muslim Family Day" (most commonly specific to an 11 October 2015 event at the Six Flags Over Georgia theme park) began circulating among social media users. Many tweets and Facebook comments indicated users were unfamiliar with Muslim Family Day, its scope, or its purpose. According to the event's web site, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) began organizing Muslim Family Day outings across the United States in 2000: web site This event was first held at Six Flags Great Adventure, NJ, in September 2000. The event was immediately a huge success. The tragic events of 9/11 that resulted in the loss of thousands of innocent lives, also affected this event directly. The chief organizer, Tariq Amanullah, who worked on the 96th floor of WTC, Tower 2, passed away. The team was unable to come together again till year 2004, when the event came back bigger than ever before. In 2015, ICNA organized at least two Muslim Family Day events at Six Flags theme parks. On 14 September 2015, Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, New Jersey, was reserved for the event, as shown by a flyer available on the park's web site: Great Adventure flyer The 11 October 2015 Muslim Family Day at Six Flags Over Georgia was listed on the park's web site along with several other separate private events held there, such as "Math and Science Day," "Physics Day," "Relay for Life American Cancer Society Luminara Ceremony," and the "Scream Out Loud LGBT Pride Party": Muslim Family Day listed Six Flags Over Georgia will host Muslim Friends and Family Day, a private event in the Picnic Pavilions, presented by ICNA, Sunday, October 11, 2015. During this private event, Muslims and their friends, families, and all guests will be able to enjoy Halal foods, open-air bazaars featuring Muslim merchants, congressional prayers, informative lectures, our thrilling roller coasters and a stream of Islamic nasheed. Buy your tickets below, or enter promo code muslim on our website. Among rumors circulating on social media were claims that Six Flags locations were "closed" to non-Muslims on Muslim Family Day events, or that Christians were denied permission to organize similar events: denied WTF is this??! #SixFlagsBaltimore CLOSED TODAY TO ALL NON MUSLIMS! #RT AND SPREAD THE WORD #BoycottSixFlags#BREAKINGpic.twitter.com/btDYRKaywI #SixFlagsBaltimore #RT #BoycottSixFlags #BREAKING pic.twitter.com/btDYRKaywI Anonymous (@exposes_racism) September 19, 2015 September 19, 2015 Six Flags Baltimore is closed to non-Muslims on September 19! FUCK Six Flags and FUCK the Muslim Family Day! Dr. Frank Corleone (@DaGodfather907) September 18, 2015 September 18, 2015 Both inferences were misleading. Muslim Family Day is one of several private events organized by a variety of groups at Six Flags locations across the United States; when a group pays to rent a Six Flags park for a private event, it's up to that group to determine how to distribute tickets for the event. Moreover, most Six Flags parks have a "Religious Group Events" page, and Six Flags St. Louis, for example, features a description geared towards attracting private events for Christian groups: page Six Flags is the place for friends, fellowship and fun. Whether youre looking for a way to bring your church community together in a new and thrilling setting or celebrating with your youth group after a mission trip, Six Flags provides entertainment for guests of all ages. We offer a variety of programs that can enhance your visit to the park including concerts by the hottest names in Christian talent and catered options in our private picnic grove. If youre looking for a special way to celebrate, host a Sunday service at Six Flags. We offer a variety of venues and amenities, giving you the unique opportunity to combine your praise time and play time. Six Flags St. Louis will make your visit to the park one that your church members will be talking about all year long. The wording appears to be part of a general Six Flags template, as a nearly identical page was found on the web site for Six Flags Magic Mountain in California. One such upcoming event slated for that venue is the 7 November 2015 "Life Teen Catholic Youth Rally," and a flyer [PDF] for an August 2015 event at Six Flags St. Louis definitively answers the question of when "Christian Family Day" would be held by the amusement park chain: Magic Mountain event PDF In addition, there was "Christian Family Night" at Magic Mountain on 11 September 2015 (and a Hallelujah Jubilee the following day), a Christian music festival at Six Flags over Washington, D.C. in August 2015 [PDF], an April 2015 Christian Concert Weekend, and a Christian Fellowship Day hosted at Six Flags Over Georgia in July 2015. Many of the Christian-themed Six Flags events prior to July 2015 were subsequently archived and can no longer be accessed (so those events are likely just a handful of many that have occurred over the years). Christian Family Night Hallelujah Jubilee PDF Christian Concert hosted So while it's true that at least three Six Flags parks hosted a Muslim Family Day in 2015, many more Christian-themed private events have been held at the chain's parks (and contrary to some rumors, no "uproar" of "offended Muslims" has sought to stop them or threatened a boycott). Muslim Family Day (like any other private event) is for ticket-holders only, but non-Muslims who wished to attend were neither prohibited from doing so nor "banned" from the parks. Each Six Flags location features a page inviting groups to book religious events, and those pages primarily focus on Christian groups, churches, and organizations in their wording.

['loss']

NEI

Many tweets and Facebook comments indicated users were unfamiliar with Muslim Family Day, its scope, or its purpose. According to the event's web site, the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) began organizing Muslim Family Day outings across the United States in 2000:In 2015, ICNA organized at least two Muslim Family Day events at Six Flags theme parks. On 14 September 2015, Six Flags Great Adventure in Jackson, New Jersey, was reserved for the event, as shown by a flyer available on the park's web site:The 11 October 2015 Muslim Family Day at Six Flags Over Georgia was listed on the park's web site along with several other separate private events held there, such as "Math and Science Day," "Physics Day," "Relay for Life American Cancer Society Luminara Ceremony," and the "Scream Out Loud LGBT Pride Party":Among rumors circulating on social media were claims that Six Flags locations were "closed" to non-Muslims on Muslim Family Day events, or that Christians were denied permission to organize similar events:WTF is this??! #SixFlagsBaltimore CLOSED TODAY TO ALL NON MUSLIMS! #RT AND SPREAD THE WORD #BoycottSixFlags#BREAKINGpic.twitter.com/btDYRKaywI Anonymous (@exposes_racism) September 19, 2015Six Flags Baltimore is closed to non-Muslims on September 19! FUCK Six Flags and FUCK the Muslim Family Day! Dr. Frank Corleone (@DaGodfather907) September 18, 2015Both inferences were misleading. Muslim Family Day is one of several private events organized by a variety of groups at Six Flags locations across the United States; when a group pays to rent a Six Flags park for a private event, it's up to that group to determine how to distribute tickets for the event. Moreover, most Six Flags parks have a "Religious Group Events" page, and Six Flags St. Louis, for example, features a description geared towards attracting private events for Christian groups:The wording appears to be part of a general Six Flags template, as a nearly identical page was found on the web site for Six Flags Magic Mountain in California. One such upcoming event slated for that venue is the 7 November 2015 "Life Teen Catholic Youth Rally," and a flyer [PDF] for an August 2015 event at Six Flags St. Louis definitively answers the question of when "Christian Family Day" would be held by the amusement park chain:In addition, there was "Christian Family Night" at Magic Mountain on 11 September 2015 (and a Hallelujah Jubilee the following day), a Christian music festival at Six Flags over Washington, D.C. in August 2015 [PDF], an April 2015 Christian Concert Weekend, and a Christian Fellowship Day hosted at Six Flags Over Georgia in July 2015. Many of the Christian-themed Six Flags events prior to July 2015 were subsequently archived and can no longer be accessed (so those events are likely just a handful of many that have occurred over the years).

Is This a 'Pollen Cloud' Falling from a Tree?

['WARNING: Those of you with allergies may find this video unsettling.']

At the end of June 2019, a video supposedly showing a large cloud of pollen dropping from a fallen tree went viral on social media, with one iteration posted by the Facebook page BigDawgsTv racking up several million views within a week of its upload date: https://youtu.be/u7JHwplUAnESome viewers were so shocked to see so much pollen emitted by a single tree that they were skeptical of the clip and questioned whether or not it had been doctored. With our sympathies to those who suffer from allergies, we note that this video is authentic. This video was first posted to the Facebook page of the Washington-based company Matts Tree & Landscape in May 2019, along with a message announcing the start of "allergy season": A small portion of a company sign can be seen at the start of the video displaying the first three digits of a phone number (425, a Seattle area code), a logo, and the first two letters of the company name ("MA"). The same sign can also be seen in a photograph posted to the company's Facebook page: photograph While this video may have been shocking to some viewers, this wasn't the first time that an online video captured a large pollen cloud falling from a tree. In May 2018, a Kentucky Facebook user posted a similar video showing a machine shaking the pollen off of a tree, and that clip was picked up and shared by several local and national news outlets: posted picked shared local Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, talked to Live Science shortly after the latter video went viral in 2018 and explained that while the scene may have been unsettling to some viewers, such pollen clouds aren't unusual: Live Science Pollen is a grainy, plant-produced substance that carries the tools that seed-plants need to create male gametes aka, sperm. While pollen is not actually sperm itself, pollen grains do contain the cells necessary to transfer the male half of the plant's DNA to a compatible plant's female counterparts (like the pistil and female cones). You could say, as Live Science writer Natalie Wolchover once did, that pollen is plant sperm powder ... "This [scene] is not unusual," Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, told Live Science. "In general, most plants produce much more pollen than is needed. For example, a single corn plant produces 2 [million] to 5 million pollen grains, and an ear of corn has a few hundred seeds. This is especially true for plants that are wind-pollinated." Pine trees, like the ones in the video above, are no exception. Some species of pine can produce up to 5 lbs. (2.2 kilograms) of pollen in just a few weeks, according to Robert Bardon, associate dean for extension in the department of forestry and environmental resources at North Carolina State University. Why make so much pollen? Call it offspring insurance. Specktor, Brandon. "Watch a Massive 'Pollen Cloud' Explode from Late-Blooming Tree." Live Science. 9 May 2018. Katz, Brigit. "Watch This Pine Tree Unleash a Huge, Fluffy Pollen Cloud." Smithsonian. 10 May 2018.

['insurance']

True

A small portion of a company sign can be seen at the start of the video displaying the first three digits of a phone number (425, a Seattle area code), a logo, and the first two letters of the company name ("MA"). The same sign can also be seen in a photograph posted to the company's Facebook page:While this video may have been shocking to some viewers, this wasn't the first time that an online video captured a large pollen cloud falling from a tree. In May 2018, a Kentucky Facebook user posted a similar video showing a machine shaking the pollen off of a tree, and that clip was picked up and shared by several local and national news outlets:Sheila McCormick, an adjunct professor of plant and microbial biology at the University of California, Berkeley, talked to Live Science shortly after the latter video went viral in 2018 and explained that while the scene may have been unsettling to some viewers, such pollen clouds aren't unusual:

Dell Hospital Facebook Appeal

['Rumor: Dell Hospital will contribute money towards the medical care of a 5-year-old rape victim every time a message is shared.']

Claim: Dell Hospital will contribute money towards the medical care of a 5-year-old rape victim every time a message is shared. Example: [Collected via Facebook, October 2010] This guy raped a five year old little girl. He ruined her life, she is alive & in the hospital can't move and can never have children, or a normal life. This guy goes by different names he is in hiding & has AIDS. The girl came out positive. Please help us catch this animal. Every time this message is fwd the Dell Hospital will donate $.15 to Maria's medication & treatment. Please dont hesitate to fwd this. It could've been youre daughter or sister. God bless. Thank you!. Forward this to as many people as you can. Origins: The account given in the above entreaty for funds to help pay the medical costs of a five-year-old rape victim named Maria is just another in a long line of hoaxes playing on the idea that some entity will pay out money every time good-hearted souls use Facebook's "share" feature to pass along information to their social network friends. The notion that various business entities will pony up funds for a good cause whenever someone forwards, texts, likes, posts, shares, or otherwise disseminates a particular message is one of the longest-running hoaxes on the Internet. hoaxes This item is similar in form to another widely circulated Facebook hoax about raising funds for the medical care of a child rape victim, but at least that other example was based on a real-life event (even if its appeal for money was spurious). In this case, however, the message is not based on any actual incidence of crime. child rape The Dell Childrens Medical Center of Central Texas has been bedeviled by this rumor since October 2010, at which time they posted an alert about it on their web site: alert ALERT: SPAM Text Message Makes Claim A false text message has been circulating that describes an incident involving a 5-year old girl. The message states that every time you forward it to someone, Dell Children's Medical Center will donate 15 cents to cover the child's healthcare expenses. This message is spam and is in no way affiliated with Dell Children's Medical Center or the Seton Family of Hospitals. If you receive this message, please delete it. If you want to make a difference in the life of an injured or sick child, the best approach is still the old-fashioned one: donate your money and/or time, not a text message or Facebook wall post. Last updated: 11 May 2015

['funds']

False

playing on the idea that some entity will pay out money every time good-hearted souls use Facebook's "share" feature to pass along information to their social network friends. The notion that various business entities will pony up funds for a good cause whenever someone forwards, texts, likes, posts, shares, or otherwise disseminates a particular message is one of the longest-running hoaxes on the Internet. This item is similar in form to another widely circulated Facebook hoax about raising funds for the medical care of a child rape victim, but at least that other example was based on a real-life event (even if its appeal for money was spurious). In this case, however, the message is not based on any actual incidence of crime.The Dell Childrens Medical Center of Central Texas has been bedeviled by this rumor since October 2010, at which time they posted an alert about it on their web site:

Did a Holocaust Museum Display a Poster Listing 'Early Warning Signs of Fascism'?

['The poster was not an exhibit but instead was at one point available in the gift shop of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum.']

In January 2017, a photograph appeared to show a poster on display at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum in Washington, D.C., listing off early warning signs of looming fascism: In the US Holocaust Museum.I'm shook. pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE Sarah Rose (@RaRaVibes) January 30, 2017 January 30, 2017 The picture wasshared with criticism of President Donald Trump, as people claimed that his administration had alreadychecked off several of the boxes on the list: shared checked The posteris real, in the sense that it exists in a physical form; however, it was not created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, nor was it on display at one of the museum's exhibits. You can see a price tag in the bottom right corner of the viral image. Sarah Rose, who first shared the photograph on social media, confirmed to us that she took thepicture in the museum's gift shop. We reached out to the USHHM to confirm that it sold a poster showing "early warning signs of fascism," and they told us that themuseum no longer carries theposter. The list was originally created by Laurence Britt in 2003, for an article published by Free Inquiry magazine (a publication for secular humanist commentary and analysis). While subsequent postings of thelist often attribute it to "Dr. Laurence Britt," the author saidthat he was not actually a doctor (nor did he claim to be). Britt himself said that he could be more accuratelydescribed as an amateur historian: Laurence Britt said I've read this thread with interest. For your information I never made a claim that I was a "Dr." Someone on the internet made that ASSUMPTION when they passed on the artice. I am a retired bsunessman with a life long interst in history and current events. I have a personal book collection on these subjects of over 3000 volumes. I've contributed chapters to three books, written another, and am working on a second. I've written aproximately 25 magazine and newespaper articles on political and econmic affairs. I spent about 200 hours researching the fascism article building on a lifetime interst in the subject. My novel, "June , 2004" was written in 1997 and published in 1998. It was a fictional treatment of a future of fascism in America, which has turned out quite predictive of actual events since it was published.Regards, Larry Britt Britt created this list during George W. Bush's tenure as president of the United States. While he did not actually nameBush, he wrotein theoriginal articlethat some of the early warning signs had alreadymanifested in the United States: Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not. While the text in the image is difficult to read, another version of theposter sold bySyracuse Cultural Workers carries the same (more legible) disclaimer: Syracuse Cultural Workers Laurence W. Britt wrote about the common signs of fascism in April 2003, after researching seven fascists regimes. Those were Adolf Hitler's Nazi Germany, Benito Mussolini's Italy, Francisco Franco's Spain, Antontio de Oliveira Salazar's Portual, George Papadopoulos's Greece, August Pinochet's Chile, Mohamed Suharto's Indonesia. These signs resonate with the political and economic direction of the United states under Bush/Cheney. Get involved in reversing this anti-democratic direction while you still can! While it is true that this poster exists, it was not displayedtheUnited States Holocaust Memorial Museum, and has since been removed from its gift shop. Riese, Monica. "Holocaust Museum Poster on 'Warning Signs of Fascism' Goes Viral." The Daily Dot. 30 January 2017. Britt, Lawrence. "Fascism Anyone?" Free Inquiry. 31 March 2003. The Right Stuff. "14 Warning Signs of Nothing in Particular." 22 January 2014.

['interest']

NEI

In the US Holocaust Museum.I'm shook. pic.twitter.com/EeuHEXWusE Sarah Rose (@RaRaVibes) January 30, 2017The picture wasshared with criticism of President Donald Trump, as people claimed that his administration had alreadychecked off several of the boxes on the list:The posteris real, in the sense that it exists in a physical form; however, it was not created by the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, nor was it on display at one of the museum's exhibits.The list was originally created by Laurence Britt in 2003, for an article published by Free Inquiry magazine (a publication for secular humanist commentary and analysis). While subsequent postings of thelist often attribute it to "Dr. Laurence Britt," the author saidthat he was not actually a doctor (nor did he claim to be). Britt himself said that he could be more accuratelydescribed as an amateur historian:While the text in the image is difficult to read, another version of theposter sold bySyracuse Cultural Workers carries the same (more legible) disclaimer:

Jesus Statue 'Miraculously' Opens Eyes

["A viral video showing a statue of Jesus Christ in a Mexican church 'miraculously' opening and closing its eyes also shows signs of tampering."]

A viral video purporting to show a statue of Jesus Christ in Mexico miraculously opening and closing its eyes captured a fair amount of international media attention in early August 2016. "SPOOKY footage has emerged of a statue of Jesus appearing to open its eyes, with many believers claiming the spectacle is a miracle," UK tabloid The Sun reported on 10 August. The coverage continued: reported Investigators have scoured over the vision which appears to show the figure quickly open its eyes at a church in Mexico. Social media users were quick to comment on the clip filmed in the Chapel of Saltillo, saying it was merely an optical illusion or Photoshop job. What a coincidence that there was someone there to record it, one person wrote. Paranormal investigator Ivan Escamilla of the web site Adimensional, where the video was first posted, was undaunted by the skeptical reaction, claiming the video had been examined "for weeks" by more than 20 specialists, including priests, who "found no proof it had been doctored," the Mirror reported. According to the Argentinian newspaper El Ancasti, officials of the Diocese of Saltillo, who were the first to receive the video, declined to even view it, much less issue a statement about its authenticity. Adimensional reported El Ancasti As an exercise in documenting paranormal activity, there is frankly very little to recommend the footage. It's dark, blurry, shaky and low-resolution. As has been pointed out, the serendipitous timing of the video is suspicious. One does see the statue apparently open and close its eyes, but the sequence is more apt to bring to mind the cheesy special effects in a low-budget horror film than the impression that a miracle has occurred. The most striking thing is how thoroughly creepy and terrifying Jesus Christ's eyes look when they're open. If it is a miracle, it's a very odd miracle indeed. The best clue to the fact that the video was doctored is the fact that alterations in other areas of the image occur at precisely the same moments the eyes open and close. For example, here, in sequence, are three frames showing the statue's eyes wide open, in the process of closing, and completely closed. Observe the changes in the shadows around the eyes and not to be indelicate, but this is a giveaway the change in the shape of Jesus' right nipple: If the only thing happening in these relatively stable frames were the closing of the statue's eyes, no other changes ought to be visible. But changes are visible, especially when the footage is viewed at slow speed or frame-by-frame. For a much better demonstration of this than we can provide here, please give your attention to the video below uploaded by the Australian Phenomena YouTube channel. It seems the maker of this video, a UFO researcher named Dylan, had no trouble whatsoever finding the evidence of fakery that 20 previous experts (and priests) failed to detect. video

['budget']

False

"SPOOKY footage has emerged of a statue of Jesus appearing to open its eyes, with many believers claiming the spectacle is a miracle," UK tabloid The Sun reported on 10 August. The coverage continued:Paranormal investigator Ivan Escamilla of the web site Adimensional, where the video was first posted, was undaunted by the skeptical reaction, claiming the video had been examined "for weeks" by more than 20 specialists, including priests, who "found no proof it had been doctored," the Mirror reported. According to the Argentinian newspaper El Ancasti, officials of the Diocese of Saltillo, who were the first to receive the video, declined to even view it, much less issue a statement about its authenticity.If the only thing happening in these relatively stable frames were the closing of the statue's eyes, no other changes ought to be visible. But changes are visible, especially when the footage is viewed at slow speed or frame-by-frame. For a much better demonstration of this than we can provide here, please give your attention to the video below uploaded by the Australian Phenomena YouTube channel. It seems the maker of this video, a UFO researcher named Dylan, had no trouble whatsoever finding the evidence of fakery that 20 previous experts (and priests) failed to detect.

Did a Mother Deer Sacrifice Herself to Cheetahs to Save Her Fawns?

["A haunting photograph and a stirring tale of maternal sacrifice: one is real, the other isn't."]

Tales about animals exhibiting human (or human-like) behavior have long been the subject of myths and legends, and one form of this narrative especially resonates with modern readers: the notion that an animal, like most human mothers, would knowingly and willingly sacrifice her own life to protect her children. Many animals will, of course, engage in defensive posturing and even aggressively attack a much larger predator to defend their broods. However, we seem particularly drawn to accounts (such as this one) that suggest a mother animal goes beyond mere instinctive reaction and reasons out (and then engages in) a course of action she knows will spell her end but will preserve the lives of her offspring. One example of this type of narrative is the following account, which holds that a mother deer (actually an impala) deliberately allowed herself to be caught by cheetahs to give her two fawns a chance to escape a similar fate. The image seen here is one of a series of pictures (titled "The Stranglehold") taken by photographer Alison Buttigieg in Kenya in 2013, documenting the capture of an impala by a group of cheetahs. However, as Alison explained in her backstory to the set of photographs, what she captured on camera was not a mother impala sacrificing herself to protect her offspring. In fact, the real story was nearly the inverse of that concept—these photographs show a mother cheetah attempting to teach her cubs how to kill prey, then eventually dispatching a captured impala when her inexperienced cubs proved they weren't yet up to the task of strangling it themselves. I witnessed this cheetah kill in September 2013 in the Maasai Mara, Kenya. Narasha, the cheetah mom, was teaching her youngsters how to kill prey. However, they were a bit slow on the uptake and were playing with the hapless impala instead of killing it. Narasha, the cheetah mom, is the one grabbing the impala by the neck in all the photos. The youngsters practiced some skills like pouncing and tripping, which they got right, but they could not seem to figure out how to strangle the impala effectively. What is out of the ordinary in this sequence of photos is how calm the impala is throughout its ordeal. It is probably in shock and thus paralyzed with fear. It is disturbing how it seems to be posing in some photos, especially in the sixth one, as if determined to stay beautiful and proud until its very end. The defiance in its eyes is in stark contrast to its lack of interest in self-preservation. This allowed me to capture unique pictures of a kill that are seemingly choreographed in their grace. I wanted the viewer to sympathize with the impala while simultaneously witnessing the disturbing nature of this unusual kill. In the end, after what seemed like an interminable eternity (but was just a few minutes), the cheetah mom put the impala out of its misery, and the cats got to enjoy a nice meal. As Alison noted, it's unusual "how calm the impala is throughout its ordeal," as well as how the doomed animal exhibited a seeming "lack of interest in self-preservation," but those behaviors had nothing to do with an effort on the part of the impala to allow her fawns a chance to escape a similar fate. Other versions of this tale maintain that Ms. Buttigieg "fell into depression" after snapping the photograph, a claim she refuted in a statement to DNA (India) and in her own Facebook post: "It is not true that I suffered from depression; it was just lies so that some people get more likes on their page. People steal photos all the time to get attention, but this was very rude and hurtful." In fact, when asked if she knew her image, for which she won accolades and even awards, had gone viral, she replied, "Yes, I know. Hundreds of people are sending me messages about my fake depression and why I didn't save the deer. It's been horrible. I have no idea who started this; I wish I knew," said Buttigieg, a Maltese wildlife photographer residing in Finland.

['interest']

False

Many animals will of course engage in defensive posturing and even aggressively attack a much larger predator in order to defend their broods. But we seem especially drawn to accounts (such as this one) that posit a mother animal's going beyond mere instinctive reaction and reasoning out (and then engaging upon) a course of action she knows will spell her end but will preserve the lives of her offspring.The image seen here is one of a series of pictures (titled "The Stranglehold") taken by photographer Alison Buttigieg in Kenya in 2013, documenting the capture of an impala by a group of cheetahs. But as Alison explained in her backstory to the set of photographs, what she captured on camera was not a mother impala's sacrificing herself to protect her offspring. In fact, the real story was nearly the inverse of that concept -- these photographs show a mother cheetah attempting to teach her cubs how to kill prey, then eventually dispatching a captured impala when her inexperienced cubs proved they weren't yet up to the task of strangling it themselves:Other versions of this tale maintain that Ms. Buttigieg "fell into depression" after snapping the photograph, a claim she refuted in a statement to DNA (India), as well as in her own Facebook post:

Bacon Sandwich Reported as Offensive on Facebook

['A social media post claimed that a bacon sandwich image was deemed "offensive" by Facebook in an attempt to farm engagement.']

On 23 November 2016, the Facebook page "I Am Proud To Be English" shared a photograph of a bacon sandwich alongside a meme implying that the image was banned because it was offensive to Muslims. The meme read: "I actually had this reported on my timeline as being offensive!! Is it? How many people dare to like and share it?" Tens of thousands answered the call, though many of the post's top comments expressed skepticism about the claim on several levels. At least one person noticed that the assertion that the bacon sandwich was reported as offensive did not align with the wide circulation of the photograph after it was posted. Doubters were correct in suspecting that the bacon sandwich picture was unlikely to be flagged by Facebook. The social network's Community Standards state that only the following content is subject to review and removal: Direct Threats, Self-Injury, Dangerous Organizations, Bullying and Harassment, Attacks on Public Figures, Criminal Activity, Sexual Violence and Exploitation, and Regulated Goods. We could find no appropriate category under which the image would be restricted via a report. In response to an earlier but similar rumor, a representative for Facebook told us that images which do not violate Facebook's Community Standards would not be removed from their platform. The "share this bacon sandwich" meme was one of several that suggested that Muslims are offended by the mere sight of pork or simply offended in ways that were rumored to affect citizens of the UK or United States. Similar claims often circulate about disabled veterans, poppies, and Nativity scenes, but all versions are very likely forms of likebait (or like-farming), aiming to appeal to the emotional responses of social media users in order to promote or popularize unrelated companies or Facebook interests in a bait and switch.

['share']

False

On 23 November 2016, the Facebook page "I Am Proud To Be English" shared a photograph of a bacon sandwich alongside a meme implying the image was banned because it was offensive to Muslims:Doubters were correct in suspecting the bacon sandwich picture was unlikely to be flagged by Facebook. The social network's Community Standards held that only the following content is subject to review and removal: Direct Threats, Self-Injury, Dangerous Organizations, Bullying and Harassment, Attacks on Public Figures, Criminal Activity, Sexual Violence and Exploitation, and Regulated Goods. We could find no appropriate category under which the image would be restricted via a report.The "share this bacon sandwich" meme was one of several that suggested that Muslims are offended by the mere sight of pork, or simply offended in manners that were rumored to affect citizens of the UK or United States. Similar claims often circulate about disabled veterans, poppies, and Nativity scenes, but all versions are very likely to forms of likebait (or like-farming), aiming to appeal to the emotional responses of social media users in order to promote or popularize unrelated companies or Facebook interests in a bait and switch.

In 2009, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ranked Ohio 11th in the nation and 1st in the Midwest for overall business climate.

[]

In the race for governor, the story of the states attractiveness to business is a tale of two Ohios. In Democratic Gov. Ted Stricklands version, the states tax laws, location and workforce make it appealing, especially to small businesses. In Kasichs narrative, Ohios tax system and regulations are driving away all businesses.Each cites different studies to help make his case. In 2009, the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council ranked Ohio 11th in the nation and 1st in the Midwest for overall business climate, the governor said in a July 17 news release. We decided to take a closer look. Strickland, who made the statement in response to a Kasich ad that blamed the governor for Ohios jobs losses, was referring to a December 2009 study entitled Small Business Survival Index 2009: Ranking the Policy Environment for Entrepreneurship Across the Nation. The study was produced by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, or SBE, a trade group that represents small businesses and advocates for less government regulation.The 2009 study -- the SBEs 14th survival index -- is a more objective look than say, surveys of CEOs or other business professionals, which do not rely on hard numbers. The SBE rankings evaluate states in 36 categories, including corporate and income taxes, gas and diesel taxes, government spending, health care and energy costs, inheritance taxes, and workers compensation costs. Business and tax experts agree that these are among key factors business owners and entrepreneurs examine when considering where to locate.Ohio does rank 11th overall in the 2009 SBE index. But whether Ohio is No. 1 in the Midwest depends on how you define the Midwest.Strickland relies on the Ohio Business Development Coalition, which supports the states economic development efforts. In a news release, it defines the Midwest as Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.The U.S. Census Bureau defines the Midwest differently. It doesnt include Kentucky, which lands in the South, but it adds Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.Ohio still beats them all -- except South Dakota. While Ohio is more likely to compete with nearby states, the Mount Rushmore States ranking tops SBEs entire survey. One reason: South Dakota is among a handful of states without a personal income tax. Small business operators find that attractive because, as the SBE and other groups often point out, about 90 percent of them file taxes as individuals -- sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-Corps -- and dont pay corporate income taxes.Stricklands critics like to cite the personal income tax rate, which is high compared to about half of the other states. The conservative Tax Foundation, which Kasich frequently points to, and others say Ohios personal income tax, coupled with local taxes, makes the overall tax burden unattractive to business. The Federation of Tax Administratorstallyof total state and local tax burden ranks 29 states better than Ohio.But the Federation of Tax Administrators warns that state and local tax burden calculations dont tell the whole story of any business climate. In Ohio, for example, tax reforms begun in 2005 replaced the corporate franchise tax with an activity tax, a move that has made Ohio more attractive to businesses.What would make that a bad tax would be an increase in its rate, says Thomas Zaino, a tax attorney and Gov. Bob Tafts state tax commissioner who helped lead the tax reform. Where Ohios tax system is out of kilter with other states is with personal income tax, which includes both state and local and school income tax. We are way out of line.This brings us back the 2009 SBE survey.It looked at Ohios top personal income tax rate at the time of 5.925 percent. And it considers both personal and corporate taxes and other categories that reflect the states larger narrative about business climate. So while Strickland may overstate Ohios Midwest ranking, his claim about the SBEs rankings is on point and the SBEs methodology reflects the larger context of the tax debate.We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True. Comment on this item.

['Ohio', 'Economy', 'Small Business']

True

Strickland, who made the statement in response to a Kasich ad that blamed the governor for Ohios jobs losses, was referring to a December 2009 study entitled Small Business Survival Index 2009: Ranking the Policy Environment for Entrepreneurship Across the Nation. The study was produced by the Small Business and Entrepreneurship Council, or SBE, a trade group that represents small businesses and advocates for less government regulation.The 2009 study -- the SBEs 14th survival index -- is a more objective look than say, surveys of CEOs or other business professionals, which do not rely on hard numbers. The SBE rankings evaluate states in 36 categories, including corporate and income taxes, gas and diesel taxes, government spending, health care and energy costs, inheritance taxes, and workers compensation costs. Business and tax experts agree that these are among key factors business owners and entrepreneurs examine when considering where to locate.Ohio does rank 11th overall in the 2009 SBE index. But whether Ohio is No. 1 in the Midwest depends on how you define the Midwest.Strickland relies on the Ohio Business Development Coalition, which supports the states economic development efforts. In a news release, it defines the Midwest as Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Michigan, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota.The U.S. Census Bureau defines the Midwest differently. It doesnt include Kentucky, which lands in the South, but it adds Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota.Ohio still beats them all -- except South Dakota. While Ohio is more likely to compete with nearby states, the Mount Rushmore States ranking tops SBEs entire survey. One reason: South Dakota is among a handful of states without a personal income tax. Small business operators find that attractive because, as the SBE and other groups often point out, about 90 percent of them file taxes as individuals -- sole proprietorships, partnerships and S-Corps -- and dont pay corporate income taxes.Stricklands critics like to cite the personal income tax rate, which is high compared to about half of the other states. The conservative Tax Foundation, which Kasich frequently points to, and others say Ohios personal income tax, coupled with local taxes, makes the overall tax burden unattractive to business. The Federation of Tax Administratorstallyof total state and local tax burden ranks 29 states better than Ohio.But the Federation of Tax Administrators warns that state and local tax burden calculations dont tell the whole story of any business climate. In Ohio, for example, tax reforms begun in 2005 replaced the corporate franchise tax with an activity tax, a move that has made Ohio more attractive to businesses.What would make that a bad tax would be an increase in its rate, says Thomas Zaino, a tax attorney and Gov. Bob Tafts state tax commissioner who helped lead the tax reform. Where Ohios tax system is out of kilter with other states is with personal income tax, which includes both state and local and school income tax. We are way out of line.This brings us back the 2009 SBE survey.It looked at Ohios top personal income tax rate at the time of 5.925 percent. And it considers both personal and corporate taxes and other categories that reflect the states larger narrative about business climate. So while Strickland may overstate Ohios Midwest ranking, his claim about the SBEs rankings is on point and the SBEs methodology reflects the larger context of the tax debate.We rate Stricklands claim Mostly True.Comment on this item.

During the tenure of a Republican president with conservative views, the country was experiencing a monthly loss of 750,000 jobs.

[]

Its been nearlyeight years since George W. Bush was president, but Democrats still plan to run against him. Certainly, thats what Democratic National Committee chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz promised on the eve of the first Democratic presidential debate. There are so many people who are focused on making sure we can look at the fact that, when we had a conservative Republican president, we were losing 750,000 jobs a month, Wasserman Schultz said on CNNsState of the UnionOct. 11, 2015. Weve come through that -- 67 straight months of job growth in the private sector. People are no longer losing their homes. Thats the contrast well talk about. The DNC press office told us that Wasserman Schultz was thinking of President George W. Bush, and that the time period she had in mind were the last few months of his presidency, November through January. President Barack Obama took office on Jan. 20, 2009, so its reasonable to count that month as part of the Bush legacy. We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground. Month Jobs (000s) Loss Nov 135,469 -765 Dec 134,773 -696 Jan 133,977 -796 Average -752 Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Employment Statistics Benchmark comparison The number is particularly high because Wasserman Schultz chose the three worst months of the Bush presidency. If she had chosen a longer period, say the last full year, the losses would have averaged about 365,000 per month. The losses would shrink even more if you look at longer period of time. Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture. The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007. Of course, Wasserman Schultzs statement implies that conservative Republican policies alone brought about a massive loss of jobs and the reality is more complicated. Some analysts believe that a portion of the blame goes back to policies that enjoyed Democratic support, including changes in financial regulation passed during the Clinton administration. But Wasserman Schultz did not make that claim specifically. Our ruling Wasserman Schultz said that under a conservative Republican president the country was losing 750,000 jobs a month. Wasserman Schultz was speaking of President George W. Bush and at the end of his term, the monthly job losses averaged about 750,000 jobs. The average would of course be less if she had included Bushs final 12 months -- or a period longer than that. There is an element of cherry-picking here, but the overall point holds up. We rate the claim Mostly True.

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

True

We pulled up theBureau of Labor Statisticsnumbers and Wasserman Schultz is on solid ground.Wasserman Schultz didnt mention that the economy continued to shed jobs at or above the 700,000 mark for the first two months of Obamas presidency before the trend began to ease. This chart from theBureau of Labor Statisticsgives a more complete jobs picture.The Great Recession saw employment declines of historic proportions.Government analystscompared the relative losses from 2007 to 2009 to past downturns. The bottom purple line on their chart tracks jobs in the Great Recession which officially began December 2007.

Quotes from Hillary Clinton that are reminiscent of Marxist ideology.

['A quiz about list of various statements supposedly made by Hillary Clinton.']

Claim: List reproduces various "Marxist" statements made by Hillary Clinton. Example: [Collected via e-mail, August 2007] A little history lesson: If you don't know the answer make your best guess Answer all the questions before looking at the answers. Who said it? 1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." A. Karl MarxB. Adolph HitlerC. Joseph StalinD. None of the above 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." A. LeninB. MussoliniC. Idi AminD. None of the Above 3) "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." A. Nikita KhrushevB. Josef GoebbelsC. Boris YeltsinD. None of the above 4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own ... in order to create this common ground." A. Mao Tse DungB. Hugo ChavezC. Kim Jong IlD None of the above 5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed." A. Karl MarxB. LeninC. MolotovD. None of the above 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." A. PinochetB. MilosevicC. Saddam HusseinD. None of the above Answers: (1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005 Be afraid. Be very, very afraid and voteAnybody (woman) that would vote for her just because they think it's time for a female president has got to be out of their lunatic mind! Origins: This list of purported "Marxist" quotes by former first lady, senator, presidential candidate, and secretary of state Hillary Clinton is (like many collections of utterances from various political figures) difficult to rate as strictly "true" or "false": She did make the statements reported above, but they have all been stripped of any explanatory context, and some of them had portions elided, creating potentially misleading impressions about the nature of those statements. Below we verify the source and complete wording of each statement on this list and provide the context in which it was made. (All of these entries date from between 2004 and 2007, during which time Hillary Clinton represented the state of New York in the U.S. Senate.) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer. Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy: tax cuts Headlining an appearance with other Democratic women senators on behalf of Sen. Barbara Boxer, who is up for re-election this year, Hillary Clinton told several hundred supporters some of whom had ponied up as much as $10,000 to attend to expect to lose some of the tax cuts passed by President Bush if Democrats win the White House and control of Congress. "Many of you are well enough off that ... the tax cuts may have helped you," Sen. Clinton said. "We're saying that for America to get back on track, we're probably going to cut that short and not give it to you. We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few ... And to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity." The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context: speech It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society. Now, there is no greater force for economic growth than free markets, but markets work best with rules that promote our values, protect our workers and give all people a chance to succeed. When we get our priorities in order and make the smart investments we need, the markets work well. "(We) ... can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people." "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own in order to create this common ground." "I certainly think the free-market has failed." The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change: Presidential Forum We can set the vision. We can even work to articulate the goal. But the pathway is extraordinarily complicated because of how we live today andhow we think of ourselves in relation to our fellow citizens. Take health care. I think we could get almost unanimous agreement that having more than 45 million uninsured people, nine million of whom are children, is a moral wrong in America. And I think we could reach that agreement, and then we would have to start doing the hard work of deciding what we were going to do to make sure that they were not uninsured, because an uninsured person who goes to the hospital is more likely to die than an insured person. I mean, that is a fact. So, what do we do? We have to build a political consensus. And that requires people giving up a little bit of their own turf, in order to create this common ground. The same with energy you know, we can't keep talking about our dependence on foreign oil, and the need to deal with global warming, and the challenge that it poses to our climate and to God's creation, and just let business as usual go on. And that means something has to be taken away from some people. The third statement was part of a passage in which Senator Clinton listed a number of entities (including churches, schools, and the government, as well as the free market) that she felt had failed in helping young people to make responsible decisions (particularly in reference to abortion): Q: Could you see yourself, with millions of voters in a pro-life camp, creating a common ground, with the goal ultimately in mind of reducing the decisions for abortion to zero? A: Yes. Yes. And that is what I have tried to both talk about and reach out about over the last many years, going back, really, at least 15 years, in talking about abortion being safe, legal, and rare. And, by rare, I mean rare. And it's been a challenge, because the pro-life and the pro-choice communities have not really been willing to find much common ground. And I think that is a great failing on all of our parts, because, for me there are many opportunities to assist young people to make responsible decisions. There is a tremendous educational and public outreach that could be done through churches, through schools, through so much else. But I think it has to be done with an understanding of reaching people where they are today. We have so many young people who are tremendously influenced by the media culture and by the celebrity culture, and who have a very difficult time trying to sort out the right decisions to make. And I personally believe that the adult society has failed those people. I mean, I think that we have failed them in our churches, our schools, our government. And I certainly think the, you know, free market has failed. We have all failed. We have left too many children to sort of fend for themselves morally. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched." This passage was taken from a 2 September 2005 appearance by Senator Clinton in front of constituents in Elmira Heights, New York, where (in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina) she expressed her opinion about the need for federal regulatory oversight of the oil industry in order to curb high gasoline prices and U.S. dependence on foreign oil: The anxiety and anger felt by motorists was evident at nearly every turn in her travels throughout the Finger Lakes region of Upstate New York. She made clear she shared the concern. "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in our entire economy that they're being watched," she said in explaining her call for an inquiry by the Federal Trade Commission. "I think human nature left to itself is going to push the limit as far as possible, and that's what you need a government regulatory system for: to keep an eye on people to make the rules of the game fair, to make a level playing field and not give anybody some kind of undue advantage." Clinton criticized the new energy bill, which she opposed, as inadequate to solve the country's long-term energy problem. She said the United States has regressed over the past three decades, since the first oil shocks of the early 1970s. "We've had 30 years to do some things we haven't done," she said. "In fact we've gotten, we've gone backwards in many respects. "I am tired of being at the mercy of people in the Middle East and elsewhere, and I'm tired frankly of being at the mercy of these large oil companies," Clinton said. Last updated: 30 March 2015 Fouhy, Beth. "San Francisco Rolls Out the Red Carpet for the Clintons." Associated Press. 29 June 2004. CNN. "The Situation Room: Sojourners Presidential Forum." 4 June 2007.

['insurance']

NEI

This statement by Senator Hillary Clinton was not (as commonly assumed) addressed to the general public, but rather to a group of relatively well-to-do Democrats attending a June 2004 fundraiser for California senator Barbara Boxer. Her statement specifically referred to a desire to repeal tax cuts that had recently been enacted by the Bush administration, cuts which many Democrats had criticized as favoring the wealthy:This entry is a pieced-together passage from a 29 May 2007 economic policy speech given by Senator Clinton on the subject of "Modern Progressive Vision: Shared Prosperity." The supposedly "Marxist" nature of this statement is undercut when the sentences that immediately followed it (affirming support for a free market economy) are included for context:The above three statements are all out-of-context passages taken from a 4 June 2007 CNN "Presidential Forum" conducted with three Democratic presidential hopefuls, senators John Edwards, Barack Obama, and Hillary Clinton. The second statement was part of a straightforward expression of the need to for people to reach a consensus (through metaphorically giving up some of their political "turf," not literally giving up their possessions) on how to proceed in order to tackle an issue such as universal health insurance, while the first statement is another pieced-together quote that omits the contextual references to the issues of health care, dependence on foreign oil, and climate change:

No, Jeff Bezos Is Not Rich Enough To Give Everyone $1 Billion

['A simple arithmetic error made this screenshot go viral.']

On Jan. 9, 2024, a user posted a Twitter screenshot to the r/Facepalm subreddit showing a comment claiming that Jeff Bezos, the chairman and founder of Amazon, could give everyone in the world $1 billion, thus solving world poverty, with plenty of money left over: r/Facepalm subreddit (OpenlyBasics/Reddit) Bezos is rich, but not that rich. A math error led to the incorrect conclusion that he could end world poverty and give everyone $1 billion each and still have $91.5 billion left. Snopes was able to find the original New York Post article, published on May 14, 2020, which claimed that Bezos was on track to become the world's first trillionaire by the year 2026. The article was indeed posted to the publication's X (known as Twitter at the time) account. However, in the comments of that post, we were not able to find the original reply to the post as shown in the screenshot on Reddit. Therefore we conclude that the user either realized the error in the post and deleted it, or that the reply never existed at all. New York Post article posted These kind of math mishaps are relatively common. Snopes checked the math of a user making a similar claim about Elon Musk in 2022, and in 2020, Politifact checked a tweet that appeared live on MSNBC claiming that Michael Bloomberg, who at that point was in the midst of a presidential campaign, could have done a similar thing with money left over. Elon Musk in 2022 Politifact checked a tweet But the post left us with a few interesting questions: How much money could Bezos distribute equally to everyone in the world? What about, let's say, if the world's 10 richest individuals distributed their money equally to everyone in the world? How much money would it take before you could give everyone $1 million? We used Forbes' Real Time Billionaires page for wealth data and Worldometer's population counter to estimate the current world population, which we rounded to 8.085 billion (and growing!) Forbes' Real Time Billionaires Worldometer's population counter First, the easiest calculation: Forbes lists Bezos's net worth at $176.2 billion. To calculate how much every individual would receive, we divide Bezos's wealth by the number of people on the planet. That calculation, $176,200,000,000 / $8,085,000,000, can be simplified a bit by removing some of the remaining zeroes at the end, bringing it down to $176,200 / 8,085 = 21.79. That's roughly a $20 bill for every person on the planet, with some pocket change thrown in. Alongside Bezos, we found seven technology titans including Elon Musk (No. 1), Mark Zuckerberg (No. 5) and Bill Gates (No. 7) the investor Warren Buffet (No. 6), and the owner of the French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH, Bernard Arnault (No. 2). The total wealth of the top 10 individuals adds up to $1.455 trillion. Dividing that wealth by the 8 billion people on the planet gives us a result of $179.93 per person, $45 short of the weekly food cost for a family of four using the USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report for November 2023. USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report November 2023 This is a thought experiment, so we're going to ignore the obvious economic and social consequences of such an action. Multiplying 8.085 billion people by $1 million per individual adds an extra six zeroes, giving us a total of 8.085 quadrillion. We're going to have to up our scale factor dramatically. The gross domestic product (GDP) is a number that measures the value of all of the goods and services produced in a certain area over a certain amount of time. According to data from Statista.org, the GDP of the United States is about $25 trillion. Using that comparison, there would have to be over 100 U.S.-level economies in the world just to reach 2 quadrillion. In fact, the GDP of the entire world economy is estimated at only about $100 trillion. $25 trillion $100 trillion Given those totals, if everyone in the world had exactly the same amount of money as everyone else, we would all have $12,368.58 in our bank accounts. It's safe to say that Bezos isn't going to be handing over $1 billion to everyone on the planet any time soon.

['economy']

False

On Jan. 9, 2024, a user posted a Twitter screenshot to the r/Facepalm subreddit showing a comment claiming that Jeff Bezos, the chairman and founder of Amazon, could give everyone in the world $1 billion, thus solving world poverty, with plenty of money left over:Snopes was able to find the original New York Post article, published on May 14, 2020, which claimed that Bezos was on track to become the world's first trillionaire by the year 2026. The article was indeed posted to the publication's X (known as Twitter at the time) account. However, in the comments of that post, we were not able to find the original reply to the post as shown in the screenshot on Reddit. Therefore we conclude that the user either realized the error in the post and deleted it, or that the reply never existed at all.These kind of math mishaps are relatively common. Snopes checked the math of a user making a similar claim about Elon Musk in 2022, and in 2020, Politifact checked a tweet that appeared live on MSNBC claiming that Michael Bloomberg, who at that point was in the midst of a presidential campaign, could have done a similar thing with money left over.But the post left us with a few interesting questions: How much money could Bezos distribute equally to everyone in the world? What about, let's say, if the world's 10 richest individuals distributed their money equally to everyone in the world? How much money would it take before you could give everyone $1 million? We used Forbes' Real Time Billionaires page for wealth data and Worldometer's population counter to estimate the current world population, which we rounded to 8.085 billion (and growing!)Alongside Bezos, we found seven technology titans including Elon Musk (No. 1), Mark Zuckerberg (No. 5) and Bill Gates (No. 7) the investor Warren Buffet (No. 6), and the owner of the French luxury goods conglomerate LVMH, Bernard Arnault (No. 2). The total wealth of the top 10 individuals adds up to $1.455 trillion. Dividing that wealth by the 8 billion people on the planet gives us a result of $179.93 per person, $45 short of the weekly food cost for a family of four using the USDA's Monthly Cost of Food Report for November 2023.The gross domestic product (GDP) is a number that measures the value of all of the goods and services produced in a certain area over a certain amount of time. According to data from Statista.org, the GDP of the United States is about $25 trillion. Using that comparison, there would have to be over 100 U.S.-level economies in the world just to reach 2 quadrillion. In fact, the GDP of the entire world economy is estimated at only about $100 trillion.

Today California is kicking our butt, creating more jobs and more economic growth than Texas.

[]

Ever-proud Texas has lately been surpassed in job gains and economic strength by California, a Texas Democrat points out. Julián Castro, the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, mentioned California during the Texas Democratic Party's state convention after noting that as governor, Republican Rick Perry taunted the West Coast state for its economy not matching his home state's pace. Today, the former San Antonio mayor told reporters on June 17, 2016, "California is kicking our butt, creating more jobs and more economic growth than Texas. Maybe what we need to do is trade in Gov. Jerry Brown of California for Gov. Greg Abbott and get better results." Castro made a similar declaration in his evening keynote speech, telling delegates, "This is what happens when a party doesn't believe in government in the first place but has absolute power over its people for decades. You know, they used to brag that Texas was doing so much better than big bad liberal California. But Texas Republicans managed to bungle that too. Because today California is kicking our butt in job development and economic growth." Wondering how Castro reached his conclusion, we heard back from Manny Garcia, a state party official, who said by email that Castro drew on news stories and government data to find Texas trailing. Garcia also provided what he described as Castro's personally prepared backup document. Over the 12 months starting in June 2015, Castro's footnoted document notes that Texas added an estimated 171,800 seasonally adjusted jobs, per the Texas Workforce Commission. California, from April 2015 through April 2016, reportedly added 450,200 jobs, the document states. Castro's document also declares that California has recently seen greater percentage increases in Gross Domestic Product. Between the first quarter of 2014 and the last quarter of 2015, the Bureau of Economic Analysis announced on June 14, 2016, that California saw a 4.1 percent increase in GDP, based on national prices for the goods and services produced within each state. Texas's GDP had gone up 3.8 percent, according to the bureau. Also noted by Castro, California's real GDP grew 2.7 percent from the third quarter to the fourth quarter of 2015; Texas's GDP only grew 1.4 percent. Castro's document further notes that from 2014 to 2015, per capita personal income in California grew by 5.3 percent, according to a March 2016 Bureau of Economic Analysis document. In the same year, per capita personal income in Texas grew 2.4 percent, according to the bureau's fact sheet about Texas. For our part, we noticed that Castro compared raw changes in jobs over slightly different time periods. Economists we queried agreed that the population difference between the states makes raw counts less useful than rate-of-change comparisons. At the time Castro spoke, the latest available U.S. Census Bureau population estimates indicated that as of July 2015, the Golden State was home to 38.8 million people, while Texas had 27 million residents—30 percent fewer. To compare job gains for each state over a similar period, we turned to Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist in the Dallas office of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. By email, Abbot advised that from May 2015 through April 2016, 32 states had statistically significant year-over-year increases in nonfarm payroll employment. The largest job gains, she said, were in California, Florida, and Texas, with 440,300, 253,900, and 171,800 jobs gained, respectively. In percentage growth, Abbot stated that the annual rate of job growth for California was 2.8 percent, compared with Texas's 1.5 percent. We asked Daniel Hamermesh, an economist at Royal Holloway, University of London, formerly employed by the University of Texas, to assess the job figures with Castro's claim in mind. By email, Hamermesh replied that Castro was right for the short term, though Texas continues to look better in the long view; from May 2006 to May 2016, the state saw job gains of 18.6 percent, while California experienced 8 percent growth, Hamermesh said. After we downloaded the government's monthly counts of jobs in each state, we found that as of May 2016, California had experienced greater percentage gains in employment than Texas for every 12-month period going back to 2011. It's only if you go back further that Texas's job growth exceeds that of California. This doesn't entirely mean Texas loses out. Separately, in response to our inquiry, Tara Sinclair, chief economist for Indeed, a job-posting service, pointed out by email that Texas has long enjoyed a lower unemployment rate—a facet Castro didn't mention. Sinclair drew on data posted by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to show that Texas's unemployment rate has trailed California's rate since before 2010. Sinclair also prepared a graph showing that since about 1990, Texas has had a better nonfarm employment-to-population ratio than California, though both states have shown improvement since 2010. All in all, Sinclair said by email, focusing on the total number of people employed is misleading due to the different population sizes of the two states. By both the unemployment rate (a standard measure of labor market health) and the employment-to-population ratio, Texas's labor market actually looks healthier than California's. Castro's other suggested indicators—GDP and personal income growth—check out in California's favor. We confirmed his provided GDP figures, also spotting two sets of inflation-adjusted Bureau of Economic Analysis figures of note: California's $2.2 trillion GDP in the first quarter of 2016 was up 4.7 percent from its $2.17 trillion GDP in the first quarter of 2015, while Texas's first quarter 2016 GDP of $1.48 trillion was up 0.2 percent from $1.478 trillion 12 months before (figures in chained 2009 dollars). California's 2015 per capita real GDP of $56,395 was up 3.2 percent from $54,606 in 2014; Texas's per capita GDP of $53,707 was up 1.8 percent from $52,742 in 2014. Meanwhile, the bureau's state-by-state breakout shows California with the bigger improvement in personal income between the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016. Personal income means net earnings from property income and other sources, including government programs. California saw 0.9 percent growth in per capita personal income between the last quarter of 2015 and the first quarter of 2016, according to another bureau chart, while Texas saw 0.8 percent growth. California also saw greater growth by this metric in each of the previous four quarters, per the chart, with Texas last having a growth edge in the fourth quarter of 2014. Our ruling: Castro said that today, California is creating more jobs and more economic growth than Texas. These fighting words hold up based on recent job growth and relative changes in GDP and personal income. Still, would it hurt to acknowledge that Texas continues to enjoy a lower unemployment rate? We rate this claim True.

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

True

Today,the former San Antonio mayor told reportersJune 17, 2016, California is kicking our butt, creating more jobs and more economic growth than Texas. Maybe what we need to do is trade in Gov. Jerry Brown, of California, for Gov. Greg Abbott and get better results.Castro made a similar declaration in his evening keynote speech,telling delegates: This is what happens when a party doesnt believe in government in the first place but has absolute power over its people for decades. You know, they used to brag that Texas was doing so much better than big bad liberal California. But Texas Republicans managed to bungle that too. Because today California is kicking our butt in job development and economic growth.Wondering how Castro reached his conclusion, we heard back from Manny Garcia, a state party official, who said by email that Castro drew on news stories and government data to find Texas trailing. Garcia also provided what he described as Castros personally preparedbackup document.Over the 12 months starting in June 2015, Castros footnoted document notes, Texas added an estimated 171,800 seasonally adjusted jobs,per the Texas Workforce Commission. California from April 2015 through April 2016reportedly added450,200 jobs, the document says.Castros document also declares that California has lately seen greater percentage increases in Gross Domestic Product. Between the first quarter of 2014 and the last quarter of 2015, the Bureau of Economic AnalysisannouncedJune 14, 2016, California saw a 4.1 percent increase in GDP, based on national prices for the goods and services produced within each state. Texas GDP had gone up 3.8 percent, per the bureau. Alsonotedby Castro, Californias real GDP grew 2.7 percent from the third quarter to the fourth quarter of 2015; Texass GDP only grew 1.4 percent.Castros document further notes that from 2014 to 2015, per capita personal income in California grew by 5.3 percent, according toa March 2016 Bureau of Economic Analysis document. In the same year, per capita personal income in Texas grew 2.4 percent, according to the bureaufact sheet about Texas.For our part, we noticed that Castro compared raw changes in jobs over slightly different time periods. Economists we queried agreed the population difference between the states makes raw counts less useful than rate-of-change comparisons. At the time Castro spoke, the latest availableU.S. Census Bureau population estimatesindicated that as of July 2015, the Golden State was home to 38.8 million people and Texas had 27 million residents--or 30 percent fewer.After wedownloaded the governments monthly counts of jobs in each state, we found that as of May 2016, California had experienced greater percentage gains in employment than Texas for every 12-month period going back to 2011. Its only if you go back further that Texass jobs growth exceeds the growth for California.This doesnt entirely mean Texas loses out. Separately to our inquiry,Tara Sinclair, chief economist for Indeed, a job-posting service, pointed out by email that Texas has long enjoyed a lower unemployment rate--a facet Castro didnt mention.Sinclair drew on data posted by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis to show thatTexas unemployment rate has trailed Californias rate since before 2010. Sinclair also prepared agraphshowing that since about 1990, Texas has had a better nonfarm employment-to-population ratio than California, though both states have shown improvement since 2010:Meantime, the bureausstate-by-state breakoutshows California with the bigger improvement in personal income between the last quarter of 2015 and first quarter of 2016. Personal income means net earnings from property income and other sources including government programs.TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/d4bc09e3-1eeb-40d9-bf5b-e9623d046118

Beto O'Rourke's 'Reality Check' can be paraphrased as "A thorough evaluation of the facts by Beto O'Rourke."

['A widely-shared Facebook meme offered allegations about a rising Democratic politician in Texas.']

Democratic congressman Beto O'Rourke of Texas came to national prominence in 2018 through his high-profile campaign to unseat incumbent Republican U.S. senator Ted Cruz. During the course of his campaign, the Democratic candidate has been confronted with various claims and allegations about himself and his family. One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018:A spokesperson for O'Rourke's campaign described the meme as "factually incorrect in countless ways" and largely referred us to several existing news reports about the allegations. The following is our breakdown of the five sections contained in the meme.O'Rourke adopted the name "Beto" to appeal to Latino voters: The meme claimed:NOT HISPANIC"Robert O'Rourke" became "Beto" for his political campaigns and on the ballot, a tactic that gives the false impression he's Latino, misleading voters in a state with many Hispanics.In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.")O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.)O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s.A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design.After checking the archives of the El Paso Times, we found multiple references to "Beto O'Rourke" between 1986 and 2004, when O'Rourk was either a child or a businessman and had never run for political office.In March, the campaign of O'Rourke's Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, launched a radio jingle that poked fun at the name "Beto" and included the following lyrics: "I remember reading stories/Liberal Robert wanted to fit in/So he changed his name to 'Beto'/And hid it with a grin ...":FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert ORourke, to Texas voters.Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018The next day, O'Rourke posted a photograph of himself as a young boy, wearing a sweater with the nickname "Beto" stitched into it, establishing that, contrary to false accusation, he did not "change his name" for political reasons:pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018O'Rourke used his father's connections to avoid trial for two felonies: UNPROVENThe meme claimed:FELONY ARREST RECORDAs an adult in his mid-20s, O'Rourke was caught breaking into the University of Texas El Paso. Charged with breaking and entering and burglary, he mysteriously avoided trial. A few years later, arrested for drunk driving, he again walked with a "deal." Being the song of a powerful, politically connected County Judge apparently has benefits. O'Rourke dismisses his felony convictions as "youthful pranks" and "mistakes"; it's old news, move along, nothing to see here.O'Rourke has indeed been arrested for burglary and drunk driving, a history which he has discussed several times over the course of his political career, as his spokesperson told us: "While charges were dismissed, this is something that Beto has always publicly addressed -- during his initial run for the city council, his run for Congress, in profiles written about him, during dozens of interviews, and at town halls across the state during this campaign."In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote:Twenty-three years ago I was arrested for attempted forcible entry after jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. I spent a night in the El Paso County Jail, was able to make bail the next day, and was released. Three years later, I was arrested for drunk driving -- a far more serious mistake for which there is no excuse.According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996.O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped.In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene:State and local police reports obtained by the Chronicle and Express-News show that ORourke was driving drunk at what a witness called a high rate of speed in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile from the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that ORourke had tried to drive away from the scene. O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time.In the case of his DWI arrest, O'Rourke did not face prison time because he completed an alternative adjudication program. It's not clear why the attempted burglary charge was dropped in 1996 (we asked the O'Rourke campaign about this but didn't receive a response to that particular question in time for publication). However, we could find no evidence that O'Rourke's father had any role in either case, nor did the meme offer any evidence.Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest.O'Rourke violated 'insider trading' laws: The meme claimed:INSIDER TRADING VIOLATIONSAfter being sent a memo specifically prohibiting investment in Twitter's IPO [initial public offering], O'Rourke made a tidy one-day profit on it. When uncovered by a government watchdog, he quickly turned himself in. This violation of the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) is apparently a habit, as there are several other instances of this behavior; he characterizes them as mistakes.Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress.But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him:U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke alerted the House Ethics Committee that he might have violated a new law restricting members of Congress from engaging in certain stock transactions.It is the first case to come before the committee involving a 2012 law that prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings, or IPOs, other than what is available to members of the public generally, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog group.ORourke, a Democrat whose district covers a portion of western Texas, reported the possible violation after Legistorm, an online news site that tracks congressional issues, informed him that his Nov. 15 disclosure saying he participated in the Twitter IPO earlier in the month might indicate a violation of a 2012 law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act.The freshman congressman also reported that, through his stockbroker, he participated in six other initial public offerings this year. In an interview, ORourke said he didnt see a Nov. 5 memo from the House Ethics Committee warning members of Congress about participating in IPOs.On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares:Upon receiving the letter from the Committee today I instructed my broker to sell all remaining shares, which he did. I then sent a check for the full amount of the profit from all IPO trades this year to the U.S. Treasury by overnight mail. Copies of the trades and the check have been sent to the Ethics Committee.I apologize to the House of Representatives and to the people I represent for not exercising due diligence. I will be much more thorough in the future concerning financial transactions and do my best to ensure that I am in full compliance with all rules covering members of Congress.Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day.Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13."A condom full of "white powder" was found in O'Rourke's father's car: trueThe meme claimed:FATHER'S DRUG SCANDALO'Rourke's father, while county judge, had a 2-way radio installed in his Jeep. Installers discovered a condom packed with a "white powder" concealed in his vehicle and called police. Much to the dismay of investigating officers, the Captain on duty, a friend and political ally of O'Rourke, flushed the evidence down the toilet and dropped the charges. The Captain was subsequently suspended and tried for tampering with evidence.This section of the meme relates to incidents which took place in 1983, when Beto O'Rourke was 10 years old, and which had absolutely nothing to do with him.Nevertheless, it's true that in February 1983, El Paso County Sheriff's Captain Willie Hill told two police officers to get rid of a condom full of white powder which they had found in Pat O'Rourke's car while they were installing a radio in it. The officers suspected the powder to be heroin or cocaine, but the substance was never tested to determine its true nature.Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio.O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair."O'Rourke was involved in a family business that was prosecuted for tax violations: The meme claimed:FAMILY BUSINESS FEDERALLY PROSECUTEDO'Rourke's family business "Charlotte's Furniture," a store "Beto," his mother and sister are involved with, was charged in 2010 with altering records to avoid IRS reporting. Investigators found they accepted cash payments, in one instance over $630,000 from an unnamed individual (that's a LOT of furniture)! Found guilty on 15 counts, the sentence was a $250,000 fine and 5 years' probation. Around the time O'Rourke announced as a senate candidate, the business was shuttered and its records became unavailable. O'Rourke passes the prosecution off as a "mistake"; it's been covered, move along, nothing to see here.The meme got the basic facts right about the federal tax case against Charlotte's, but it falsely claimed that Congressman O'Rourke was personally "involved" in the company. He was not.In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative.The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold.In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended.In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction.According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke.Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either.The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso.However, his part ownership of the Peppertree Square property (which does not appear to entail any management function in any of the businesses located there) did not accrue until 31 December 2012, more than six years after the conclusion of the I.R.S. reporting violations at Charlotte's. One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018: meme A spokesperson for O'Rourke's campaign described the meme as "factually incorrect in countless ways" and largely referred us to several existing news reports about the allegations. The following is our breakdown of the five sections contained in the meme. The meme claimed: NOT HISPANIC "Robert O'Rourke" became "Beto" for his political campaigns and on the ballot, a tactic that gives the false impression he's Latino, misleading voters in a state with many Hispanics. In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.") Statement O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.) CNN noted listed O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s. New York Times A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design. article article After checking the archives of the El Paso Times, we found multiple references to "Beto O'Rourke" between 1986 and 2004, when O'Rourk was either a child or a businessman and had never run for political office. In March, the campaign of O'Rourke's Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, launched a radio jingle that poked fun at the name "Beto" and included the following lyrics: "I remember reading stories/Liberal Robert wanted to fit in/So he changed his name to 'Beto'/And hid it with a grin ...": FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert ORourke, to Texas voters. Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek #KeepTexasRed https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018 March 7, 2018 The next day, O'Rourke posted a photograph of himself as a young boy, wearing a sweater with the nickname "Beto" stitched into it, establishing that, contrary to false accusation, he did not "change his name" for political reasons: pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018 March 7, 2018 The meme claimed: FELONY ARREST RECORD As an adult in his mid-20s, O'Rourke was caught breaking into the University of Texas El Paso. Charged with breaking and entering and burglary, he mysteriously avoided trial. A few years later, arrested for drunk driving, he again walked with a "deal." Being the song of a powerful, politically connected County Judge apparently has benefits. O'Rourke dismisses his felony convictions as "youthful pranks" and "mistakes"; it's old news, move along, nothing to see here. O'Rourke has indeed been arrested for burglary and drunk driving, a history which he has discussed several times over the course of his political career, as his spokesperson told us: "While charges were dismissed, this is something that Beto has always publicly addressed -- during his initial run for the city council, his run for Congress, in profiles written about him, during dozens of interviews, and at town halls across the state during this campaign." In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote: op-ed Twenty-three years ago I was arrested for attempted forcible entry after jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. I spent a night in the El Paso County Jail, was able to make bail the next day, and was released. Three years later, I was arrested for drunk driving -- a far more serious mistake for which there is no excuse. According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996. records records O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped. arrested In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene: cited State and local police reports obtained by the Chronicle and Express-News show that ORourke was driving drunk at what a witness called a high rate of speed in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile from the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that ORourke had tried to drive away from the scene. O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time. In the case of his DWI arrest, O'Rourke did not face prison time because he completed an alternative adjudication program. It's not clear why the attempted burglary charge was dropped in 1996 (we asked the O'Rourke campaign about this but didn't receive a response to that particular question in time for publication). However, we could find no evidence that O'Rourke's father had any role in either case, nor did the meme offer any evidence. Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest. judge governing body The meme claimed: INSIDER TRADING VIOLATIONS After being sent a memo specifically prohibiting investment in Twitter's IPO [initial public offering], O'Rourke made a tidy one-day profit on it. When uncovered by a government watchdog, he quickly turned himself in. This violation of the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) is apparently a habit, as there are several other instances of this behavior; he characterizes them as mistakes. Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress. STOCK Act But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him: violation U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke alerted the House Ethics Committee that he might have violated a new law restricting members of Congress from engaging in certain stock transactions. It is the first case to come before the committee involving a 2012 law that prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings, or IPOs, other than what is available to members of the public generally, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog group. ORourke, a Democrat whose district covers a portion of western Texas, reported the possible violation after Legistorm, an online news site that tracks congressional issues, informed him that his Nov. 15 disclosure saying he participated in the Twitter IPO earlier in the month might indicate a violation of a 2012 law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act. The freshman congressman also reported that, through his stockbroker, he participated in six other initial public offerings this year. In an interview, ORourke said he didnt see a Nov. 5 memo from the House Ethics Committee warning members of Congress about participating in IPOs. On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares: wrote Upon receiving the letter from the Committee today I instructed my broker to sell all remaining shares, which he did. I then sent a check for the full amount of the profit from all IPO trades this year to the U.S. Treasury by overnight mail. Copies of the trades and the check have been sent to the Ethics Committee. I apologize to the House of Representatives and to the people I represent for not exercising due diligence. I will be much more thorough in the future concerning financial transactions and do my best to ensure that I am in full compliance with all rules covering members of Congress. Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day. filed Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13." indicate The meme claimed: FATHER'S DRUG SCANDAL O'Rourke's father, while county judge, had a 2-way radio installed in his Jeep. Installers discovered a condom packed with a "white powder" concealed in his vehicle and called police. Much to the dismay of investigating officers, the Captain on duty, a friend and political ally of O'Rourke, flushed the evidence down the toilet and dropped the charges. The Captain was subsequently suspended and tried for tampering with evidence. This section of the meme relates to incidents which took place in 1983, when Beto O'Rourke was 10 years old, and which had absolutely nothing to do with him. Nevertheless, it's true that in February 1983, El Paso County Sheriff's Captain Willie Hill told two police officers to get rid of a condom full of white powder which they had found in Pat O'Rourke's car while they were installing a radio in it. The officers suspected the powder to be heroin or cocaine, but the substance was never tested to determine its true nature. Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio. being acquitted O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair." El Paso Times The meme claimed: FAMILY BUSINESS FEDERALLY PROSECUTED O'Rourke's family business "Charlotte's Furniture," a store "Beto," his mother and sister are involved with, was charged in 2010 with altering records to avoid IRS reporting. Investigators found they accepted cash payments, in one instance over $630,000 from an unnamed individual (that's a LOT of furniture)! Found guilty on 15 counts, the sentence was a $250,000 fine and 5 years' probation. Around the time O'Rourke announced as a senate candidate, the business was shuttered and its records became unavailable. O'Rourke passes the prosecution off as a "mistake"; it's been covered, move along, nothing to see here. The meme got the basic facts right about the federal tax case against Charlotte's, but it falsely claimed that Congressman O'Rourke was personally "involved" in the company. He was not. In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative. felony The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold. restructured provisions In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended. sentence In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction. announced According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke. records Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either. Records The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso. disclosure However, his part ownership of the Peppertree Square property (which does not appear to entail any management function in any of the businesses located there) did not accrue until 31 December 2012, more than six years after the conclusion of the I.R.S. reporting violations at Charlotte's. O'Rourke, Robert Beto. "Statement of Candidacy." Federal Election Commission. 9 July 2018. Bradner, Eric. "With Primary Ending, Cruz Takes Opening Shot at Beto O'Rourke's Name." CNN. 7 March 2018. Stanton, John. "Juarez's Biggest Booster Is an Irish-American Congressman." BuzzFeed News. 14 October 2014. Draper, Robert. "Texas, Three Ways." The New York Times. 14 November 2014. Scharrer, Gary. "O'Rourke Goes Out Talking." The El Paso Times. 8 December 1986. The El Paso Times. "Consumers Dial Up Web Site." 16 June 1999. O'Rourke, Beto. "Texas Should Lead the Way on True Criminal Justice Reform." The Houston Chronicle. 27 August 2018. Diaz, Kevin. "Police Reports Detail Beto O'Rourke's 1998 DWI Arrest." The Houston Chronicle. 31 August 2018. Cruz, Laura. "Friends, Family Say Goodbye to O'Rourke." The El Paso Times. 7 July 2001. The White House. "Fact Sheet: The STOCK Act -- Bans Members of Congress from Insider Trading." 4 April 2012. The El Paso Times. "Congressman May Have Broken Ethics Rules with Twitter Stock Purchase." 26 November 2013. Landis, David. "Jurors Decided Hill Negligent, Not Criminal." The El Paso Times. 23 December 1983. Scharrer, Gary. "O'Rourke Expresses Sorrow Over Charge." The El Paso Times. 29 October 1983. Legal Information Institute. "U.S. Code, Title 31, Subtitle IV, Chapter 53, Subchapter II, Section 5324 -- Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirement Prohibite." Cornell Law School. Accessed 31 August 2018. U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. "U.S.A. vs Charlotte's Inc. -- Information." 4 May 2010. U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. "U.S.A. vs Charlotte's Inc. -- Amended Judgment." 8 June 2010. Villa, Pablo. "Charlotte's Furniture Store to Close This Year, Owner Says." The El Paso Times. 4 August 2017. Correction [4 September 2018]: This article has been updated to more accurately describe the role of El Paso County judge.

['investment']

NEI

One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018:A spokesperson for O'Rourke's campaign described the meme as "factually incorrect in countless ways" and largely referred us to several existing news reports about the allegations. The following is our breakdown of the five sections contained in the meme.O'Rourke adopted the name "Beto" to appeal to Latino voters: The meme claimed:NOT HISPANIC"Robert O'Rourke" became "Beto" for his political campaigns and on the ballot, a tactic that gives the false impression he's Latino, misleading voters in a state with many Hispanics.In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.")O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.)O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s.A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design.After checking the archives of the El Paso Times, we found multiple references to "Beto O'Rourke" between 1986 and 2004, when O'Rourk was either a child or a businessman and had never run for political office.In March, the campaign of O'Rourke's Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, launched a radio jingle that poked fun at the name "Beto" and included the following lyrics: "I remember reading stories/Liberal Robert wanted to fit in/So he changed his name to 'Beto'/And hid it with a grin ...":FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert ORourke, to Texas voters.Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018The next day, O'Rourke posted a photograph of himself as a young boy, wearing a sweater with the nickname "Beto" stitched into it, establishing that, contrary to false accusation, he did not "change his name" for political reasons:pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018O'Rourke used his father's connections to avoid trial for two felonies: UNPROVENThe meme claimed:FELONY ARREST RECORDAs an adult in his mid-20s, O'Rourke was caught breaking into the University of Texas El Paso. Charged with breaking and entering and burglary, he mysteriously avoided trial. A few years later, arrested for drunk driving, he again walked with a "deal." Being the song of a powerful, politically connected County Judge apparently has benefits. O'Rourke dismisses his felony convictions as "youthful pranks" and "mistakes"; it's old news, move along, nothing to see here.O'Rourke has indeed been arrested for burglary and drunk driving, a history which he has discussed several times over the course of his political career, as his spokesperson told us: "While charges were dismissed, this is something that Beto has always publicly addressed -- during his initial run for the city council, his run for Congress, in profiles written about him, during dozens of interviews, and at town halls across the state during this campaign."In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote:Twenty-three years ago I was arrested for attempted forcible entry after jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. I spent a night in the El Paso County Jail, was able to make bail the next day, and was released. Three years later, I was arrested for drunk driving -- a far more serious mistake for which there is no excuse.According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996.O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped.In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene:State and local police reports obtained by the Chronicle and Express-News show that ORourke was driving drunk at what a witness called a high rate of speed in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile from the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that ORourke had tried to drive away from the scene. O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time.In the case of his DWI arrest, O'Rourke did not face prison time because he completed an alternative adjudication program. It's not clear why the attempted burglary charge was dropped in 1996 (we asked the O'Rourke campaign about this but didn't receive a response to that particular question in time for publication). However, we could find no evidence that O'Rourke's father had any role in either case, nor did the meme offer any evidence.Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest.O'Rourke violated 'insider trading' laws: The meme claimed:INSIDER TRADING VIOLATIONSAfter being sent a memo specifically prohibiting investment in Twitter's IPO [initial public offering], O'Rourke made a tidy one-day profit on it. When uncovered by a government watchdog, he quickly turned himself in. This violation of the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) is apparently a habit, as there are several other instances of this behavior; he characterizes them as mistakes.Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress.But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him:U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke alerted the House Ethics Committee that he might have violated a new law restricting members of Congress from engaging in certain stock transactions.It is the first case to come before the committee involving a 2012 law that prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings, or IPOs, other than what is available to members of the public generally, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog group.ORourke, a Democrat whose district covers a portion of western Texas, reported the possible violation after Legistorm, an online news site that tracks congressional issues, informed him that his Nov. 15 disclosure saying he participated in the Twitter IPO earlier in the month might indicate a violation of a 2012 law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act.The freshman congressman also reported that, through his stockbroker, he participated in six other initial public offerings this year. In an interview, ORourke said he didnt see a Nov. 5 memo from the House Ethics Committee warning members of Congress about participating in IPOs.On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares:Upon receiving the letter from the Committee today I instructed my broker to sell all remaining shares, which he did. I then sent a check for the full amount of the profit from all IPO trades this year to the U.S. Treasury by overnight mail. Copies of the trades and the check have been sent to the Ethics Committee.I apologize to the House of Representatives and to the people I represent for not exercising due diligence. I will be much more thorough in the future concerning financial transactions and do my best to ensure that I am in full compliance with all rules covering members of Congress.Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day.Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13."A condom full of "white powder" was found in O'Rourke's father's car: trueThe meme claimed:FATHER'S DRUG SCANDALO'Rourke's father, while county judge, had a 2-way radio installed in his Jeep. Installers discovered a condom packed with a "white powder" concealed in his vehicle and called police. Much to the dismay of investigating officers, the Captain on duty, a friend and political ally of O'Rourke, flushed the evidence down the toilet and dropped the charges. The Captain was subsequently suspended and tried for tampering with evidence.This section of the meme relates to incidents which took place in 1983, when Beto O'Rourke was 10 years old, and which had absolutely nothing to do with him.Nevertheless, it's true that in February 1983, El Paso County Sheriff's Captain Willie Hill told two police officers to get rid of a condom full of white powder which they had found in Pat O'Rourke's car while they were installing a radio in it. The officers suspected the powder to be heroin or cocaine, but the substance was never tested to determine its true nature.Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio.O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair."O'Rourke was involved in a family business that was prosecuted for tax violations: The meme claimed:FAMILY BUSINESS FEDERALLY PROSECUTEDO'Rourke's family business "Charlotte's Furniture," a store "Beto," his mother and sister are involved with, was charged in 2010 with altering records to avoid IRS reporting. Investigators found they accepted cash payments, in one instance over $630,000 from an unnamed individual (that's a LOT of furniture)! Found guilty on 15 counts, the sentence was a $250,000 fine and 5 years' probation. Around the time O'Rourke announced as a senate candidate, the business was shuttered and its records became unavailable. O'Rourke passes the prosecution off as a "mistake"; it's been covered, move along, nothing to see here.The meme got the basic facts right about the federal tax case against Charlotte's, but it falsely claimed that Congressman O'Rourke was personally "involved" in the company. He was not.In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative.The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold.In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended.In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction.According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke.Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either.The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso.However, his part ownership of the Peppertree Square property (which does not appear to entail any management function in any of the businesses located there) did not accrue until 31 December 2012, more than six years after the conclusion of the I.R.S. reporting violations at Charlotte's.One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018:In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.")O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.)O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s.A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design.Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote:According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996.O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped.In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene:Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest.Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress.But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him:On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares:Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day.Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13."Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio.O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair."In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative.The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold.In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended.In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction.According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke.Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either.The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso.

Is there an anticipation of an asteroid colliding with Earth near Christmas?

['The Earth is constantly surrounded by "near-earth objects."']

On Oct. 23, 2019, the U.K. tabloid Express published an article that left some readers believing they need not make Christmas plans that year because Earth was in danger of being hit by a large asteroid. The article was entitled "Asteroid Terror: NASA Spot Mammoth Space Rock to Hit Earth's Orbit Five Days Before X-mas." The subheading gave earthlings an even smaller chance of survival: "AN ASTEROID the size of the World Trade Centre is on a dangerous Earth-bound orbit that could see the rock smash the planet during Christmas festivities." When the article was regurgitated by even less reputable websites, the fear-mongering title morphed into a factually inaccurate claim. For instance, the website Digital Wise rehashed this article under the title "NASA Issues Warning Over Asteroid Predicted To Hit Earth Five Days Before Christmas!" Digital Wise has made no such announcement, and Earth is not in danger of being hit by an asteroid around Christmas. These articles are all based on a real asteroid (known as 216258 2006 WH1) and its holiday approach toward Earth. However, these articles present the information as if this asteroid is particularly dangerous. But there's nothing unusually threatening about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1. NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) currently lists 26 near-Earth objects that are scheduled to pass by our planet within the next 60 days. While asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 (which was discovered in 2006) will truly be passing by Earth around Christmas, CNEOS reports that the asteroid is expected to safely pass by Earth at a distance of about 15.19 LD (lunar distance), approximately 3.6 million miles. Dr. Paul W. Chodas, the Director of the Center for Near Earth Object Studies, told us in an email that there is "nothing unusual or dangerous" about asteroid 216258 2006 WH1: "No, there is nothing unusual or dangerous about this asteroid. It is simply making a close approach to the Earth. Astronomers have been observing this asteroid's position for 13 years; we know its orbit very accurately, we can predict its close approaches accurately for the next 200 years, and we know with certainty that it cannot hit our planet." Lindley Johnson, NASA's Planetary Defense Officer and Program Executive of the Planetary Defense Coordination Office (PDCO), also told us that this asteroid "poses no hazard to impacting Earth." NASA and other U.S. agencies are lead players in the international effort to develop plans to respond to a possible Near-Earth Object (NEO) impact. In 2018, the White House released the National Near-Earth Object Preparedness Strategy and Action Plan, which identifies key steps that U.S. agencies need to take to better prepare the United States and the world for detecting and responding to a possible impact. NASA has been directed by Congress to catalogue and characterize all NEOs bigger than 140 meters, the ones that could be catastrophic. NASA is approximately 35% complete for NEOs 140 meters and larger, and approximately 96% complete for those 1 km and larger. Strategic investments in our space-based programs will benefit all of humanity as we continue to catalogue any NEOs that pose a potential threat. This particular asteroid's trajectory has been well tracked by NASA's Center for Near-Earth Object Studies since its discovery 13 years ago and poses no hazard to impacting Earth. Here's a little more information about near-Earth objects from CNEOS. The organization writes on its website (emphasis ours): "On a daily basis, about one hundred tons of interplanetary material drifts down to the Earth's surface. Most of the smallest interplanetary particles that reach the Earth's surface are the tiny dust particles that are released by comets as their ices vaporize in the solar neighborhood. The vast majority of the larger interplanetary material that reaches the Earth's surface originates as the collision fragments of asteroids that have run into one another some eons ago. With an average interval of about 10,000 years, rocky or iron asteroids larger than about 100 meters would be expected to reach the Earth's surface and cause local disasters or produce tidal waves that can inundate low-lying coastal areas. On an average of every several hundred thousand years or so, asteroids larger than a kilometer could cause global disasters. In this case, the impact debris would spread throughout the Earth's atmosphere so that plant life would suffer from acid rain, partial blocking of sunlight, and from the firestorms resulting from heated impact debris raining back down upon the Earth's surface. Since their orbital paths often cross that of the Earth, collisions with near-Earth objects have occurred in the past, and we should remain alert to the possibility of future close Earth approaches. It seems prudent to mount efforts to discover and study these objects, to characterize their sizes, compositions, and structures, and to keep an eye on their future trajectories. No one should be overly concerned about an Earth impact of an asteroid or comet. The threat to any one person from auto accidents, disease, other natural disasters, and a variety of other problems is much higher than the threat from NEOs. Over long periods of time, however, the chances of the Earth being impacted are not negligible, so some form of NEO insurance is warranted. At the moment, our best insurance rests with the NEO scientists and their efforts to first find these objects and then track their motions into the future. We need to first find them, then keep an eye on them. NASA's Near-Earth Object Observations Program is constantly monitoring the skies for approaching asteroids and meteors. So far, the program has discovered more than 19,000 NEOs. When NASA discovers an NEO, it works to determine as much information as possible about the object, such as its size, speed, and orbit, so that the agency can calculate when it will approach Earth and how close it will come when it does. But the 19,000 NEOs in NASA's database aren't really what we have to worry about. The organization writes that thousands of NEOs have yet to be discovered: "Asteroid impacts are a continuously occurring natural process. Every day, 80 to 100 tons of material falls upon Earth from space in the form of dust and small meteorites (fragments of asteroids that disintegrate in Earth's atmosphere). Over the past 20 years, U.S. government sensors have detected nearly 600 very small asteroids a few meters in size that have entered Earth's atmosphere and created spectacular bolides (fireballs). Experts estimate that an impact of an object the size of the one that exploded over Chelyabinsk, Russia, in 2013—approximately 55 feet (17 meters) in size—takes place once or twice a century. Impacts of larger objects are expected to be far less frequent (on the scale of centuries to millennia). However, given the current incompleteness of the NEO catalogue, an unpredicted impact—such as the Chelyabinsk event—could occur at any time. Still, the chances of an asteroid larger than 140 meters hitting Earth in the next 100 years are minimal. The current congressionally directed objective of the NEO Observations Program is to find, track, and characterize at least 90 percent of the predicted number of NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in size—larger than a small football stadium—and to characterize a subset representative of the entire population. Objects of this size and larger pose a risk to Earth of greatest concern due to the level of devastation an impact would cause and should continue to be the focus of global search efforts. While no known asteroid larger than 140 meters in size has a significant chance to hit Earth for the next 100 years, less than half of the estimated 25,000 NEOs that are 140 meters and larger in size have been found to date. Asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 will pass by Earth a few days before Christmas. However, NASA has issued no warnings about a catastrophic impact, and CNEOS reports that this asteroid will get no closer than 3 million miles from Earth during its approach."

['insurance']

False

On Oct. 23, 2019, the U.K. tabloid Express published an article that left some readers believing they need not make Christmas plans this year because Earth was in danger of being hit by a large asteroid:When the article was regurgitated by even less-reputable websites, the fear-mongering title morphed into a factually inaccurate claim. For instance, the website Digital Wise rehashed this article under the title "NASA Issues Warning Over Asteroid Predicted To Hit Earth Five Days Before Christmas!"NASA's Center for Near Earth Object Studies (CNEOS) currently lists 26 near-Earth objects that are scheduled to pass by our planet within the next 60 days. While asteroid 216258 2006 WH1 (which was discovered in 2006) will truly be passing by earth around Christmas, CNEOS reports that the asteroid is expected to safely pass by earth at a distance of about 15.19 LD (lunar distance), approximately 3.6 million miles.Here's a little more information about near-earth objects from CNEOS. The organization writes on its website (emphasis ours): But the 19,000 NEOs in NASA's database aren't really what we have to worry about. The organization writes that thousands of NEOs have yet to be discovered:Still, the chances of an asteroid larger than 140 meters hitting earth in the next 100 years is minimal:

Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning.

[]

Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsin's Herb Kohl hasn't announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012. But as Republicans step up their criticism of him, Kohl is making it crystal clear that he disdains the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that would almost surely be part of another campaign. Compared to his last couple of races, when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohl's department and grocery store chains. In remarks to reporters in Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of today's campaigns. He said people don't like anyone in public life because of the venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he claimed he engages in hardly at all. Then he got specific: "I've been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I don't get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But that's just my style." So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning? That's quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out. Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back on media descriptions of TV ads, debates, and the candidates' strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohl's campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter. Kohl has, of course, benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaign's conduct, so we'll limit our review to that. One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim. Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what he's done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office. Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests—and had high praise for Kohl. "He never did anything negative in his campaign. He'll have the job as long as he wants the job," said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000. "Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner," said Robert Lorge, Kohl's 2006 rival. Fair enough. Those were landslide wins. What about the earlier contests? In 1988, Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey, and Doug La Follette. He frustrated his rivals by limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads. At the time, Earl's media consultant David Axelrod charged that Kohl's popular slogan—"Nobody's Senator But Yours"—was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who—unlike Kohl—have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president. Earl attacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation. Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary—and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiter close the gap to just a few points with a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks. Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohl's dealings with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration. La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldn't call Kohl's primary race negative. Regarding Kohl's slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said: "Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours.'" Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning. In 1994, in his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little time aggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welch's no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge. Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than he expected. Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched a rare TV ad that focused on an opponent by name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohl's record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welch's tactics—something deemed misleading in a Milwaukee Journal fact check. The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion-dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative. The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected. So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling. Looking back, though, Welch's campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesn't have strong opinions about the back and forth. "I don't know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election," he told us. He didn't recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack. Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources, and then he signed (Bucks first-round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment). Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes. Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leaning Republican. We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone. Vanderbilt professor John Geer, an author of a much-cited book on negative campaigning, said it sounded like a tame response ad—not the kind of classic negative ad the public doesn't like. Darrell West, of the Brookings Institution, agreed. UW-Madison's Ken Goldstein said Kohl's ad met the academic research definition of negative because it focused on Welch, not Kohl. The test of whether it was unfair is whether it was accurate, he said. So Kohl's campaigns have been remarkably low-confrontation affairs, with the most notable exception being 1994, the first—and perhaps only—time Kohl aired TV spots going after an opponent. So how does Kohl fare on his statement that he has never campaigned negatively? Clearly, Kohl has spent the vast bulk of his time and money on upbeat, positive ads. Even his opponents agree strongly with that—one even wants to buy him dinner. The only ad that pops up as arguably negative is the 1994 distort spot against Welch. It drew some critical attention but is viewed as a pretty tame response ad. Beyond that, Kohl's campaigns have engaged in some labeling and name-calling. And Kohl's aggressive 1994 portrayal of Welch as an extremist was arguably negative. Kohl is mostly on target here, with some minor exceptions. Mostly True.

['Bipartisanship', 'Campaign Finance', 'Candidate Biography', 'Elections', 'Wisconsin']

True

Twenty-three years into his Senate tenure, Wisconsins Herb Kohl hasnt announced whether he will seek another six-year term in 2012.But as Republicansstep up their criticismof him, Kohl is making crystal clear his disdain for the kind of rough-and-tumble campaign environment that almost surely would be part of another campaign.Compared to his last couple races when Kohl used his massive personal fortune to vanquish underfunded opponents with soft-sell TV ads, it would be a new environment for the senator who owns the Milwaukee Bucks and built the Kohls department and grocery store chains.Inremarks to reportersin Madison on April 28, 2011, Kohl ruminated about the state of todays campaigns. He said people dont like anybody in public life because of venomous attacks and sniping among congressional members, something he said he engages in hardly at all.Then he got specific: Ive been through four campaigns and have not done any negative campaigning. And I dont get into any personal jousts with other people in public life. But thats just my style.So has Kohl really avoided any negative campaigning?Thats quite a claim in this age of mud-slinging and aggressive campaign tactics. We decided to check it out.Of course, it would be impossible to track down every campaign statement Kohl made since 1988 and copies of decades-old TV ads. So we focused our look-back to media descriptions of TV ads, debates and the candidates strategies in his four races. We also talked to the people who should know best: several of his former opponents or their aides, Kohls campaign staff, and a longtime political reporter.Kohl has of course benefited from negative attacks launched by groups supporting his campaigns, but he spoke only of his own campaigns conduct, so well limit our review to that.One more note before we begin: Because there is no universally accepted definition of what constitutes negative campaigning, we asked Team Kohl what exactly he meant by his claim.Sen. Kohl has said that he believes campaigning is about telling the people of Wisconsin what hes done and what he plans to do, not tearing down his opponent or telling people not to vote for them, Kohl press secretary Lynn Becker said. He has not been deliberately malicious or factually dishonest in his campaigns or while serving in public office.Indeed, his two most recent opponents said there was no negative campaigning in their contests -- and had high praise for Kohl.He never did anything negative in his campaign. Hell have the job as long as he wants the job, said John Gillespie, founder of Rawhide Boys Ranch, who lost to Kohl in 2000.Say hi to Herb if you talk to him. Tell him I owe him a dinner, said Robert Lorge, Kohls 2006 rival.Fair enough. Those were landslide wins.What about the earlier contests?1988:Kohl was a surprise entrant in the Democratic primary, winning the nomination comfortably over former Gov. Tony Earl, Ed Garvey and Doug La Follette. Hefrustrated hisrivalsby limiting his debate participation and spending millions on TV ads.At the time,Earls media consultant David Axelrod chargedthat Kohls popular slogan -- Nobodys Senator But Yours -- was an implicit negative attack. It implied that candidates who -- unlike Kohl -- have to raise most of their campaign money are beholden to donors, said Axelrod, who later went on to help a guy named Barack Obama get elected president.Earlattacked Kohl as uninformed and error-prone, prompting Kohl campaign aide Bill Christofferson to call Earl desperate and guilty of misrepresentation.Insiders on both sides agree that Kohl ran no attack ads in the primary -- and none in the very tight general election that saw Republican state legislator Susan Engeleiterclose the gap to just a fewpointswith a series of ads targeting Kohl in the closing weeks.Engeleiter herself told us she has nothing but positive recollections of a pretty cordial campaign. She also praised Kohls dealing with her when she later was confirmed as administrator of the U.S. Small Business Administration.La Follette and Garvey say today that they wouldnt call Kohls primary race negative. Regarding Kohls slogan, La Follette agreed with Kohl aide Christofferson, who said: Herb Kohl was talking about himself, not anyone else, when he promised to be 'nobody's senator but yours.'Indeed, Kohl explicitly used his positive campaign ads as a selling point, and called his victory a blow against negative campaigning.1994:In his first re-election campaign, Kohl wasted little timeaggressively portraying Republican opponent Robert Welch, a state lawmaker from Redgranite, as an extreme conservative and flip-flopper. At an early debate, he cited Welchs no-exceptions stance against abortion and his vow never to vote for a tax hike as extreme. According to media accounts, he did not explain the flip-flop charge.Afterwards, Welch told reporters Kohl was nastier than I expected.Later, after Welch attempted to tie Kohl to President Clinton, Kohl launched arare TV ad that focused on an opponentby name. Another followed. The ads accused Welch of distorting Kohls record. One said that fellow Republicans had criticized Welchs tactics -- something deemed misleading in aMilwaukee Journal fact check.The exchange led Welch to accuse Kohl of running a multimillion dollar mudslinging campaign. Kohl said it was Welch who went negative.The rhetoric heated up. At one point in the race, after Welch accused Kohl of religion bashing, Kohl spokesman Jeffrey Gillis said that Welch's attack again shows that he'll say or do anything to get elected.So, that seems like quite a bit of snarling.Looking back, though, Welchs campaign manager Mike Maxwell doesnt have strong opinions about the back and forth.I dont know that Kohl was particularly negative through that election, he told us. He didnt recall the distort ad that Kohl ran. He did say that some might consider the extreme charge a negative attack.Kohl, Maxwell recalled, just had overwhelming resources and then he signed (Bucks first round draft choice Glenn Robinson) six days before the election. (We could not reach Welch for comment).Kenneth Lamke, a Milwaukee Sentinel reporter who covered the 1994 race, offered the strongest opinion we heard on whether Kohl went negative against Welch. He says yes.Lamke said the extreme charge by Kohl was within bounds but uncharacteristic of Herb. Lamke viewed the attack as unprovoked and an exaggeration; Gillis, the Kohl aide, said it was a response to the drumbeat of criticism of Kohl during the Republican primary. Lamke, we should note, asked us to describe his personal politics as leans Republican.We asked several political scientists to characterize the language of the Kohl ad. They reacted cautiously because we could not provide the ad itself, just direct quotes from it in media accounts. That makes it impossible to fully judge the tone.

Is Biden From the Same Scranton as 'The Office'?

["And is the home of world's most famous fictional paper company real?"]

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. Throughout the 2020 presidential campaign, U.S. Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden frequently referred to his roots in Scranton, Pennsylvania. Some social media users questioned whether this was the same "Scranton" from the U.S. sitcom "The Office" and whether Scranton was indeed a real American city. Meanwhile, Biden's political rival, U.S. President Donald Trump, accused Biden of exaggerating his connections to the small Pennsylvania city. This topic arose once again during the final presidential debate of 2020. Twice during the debate, Biden mentioned his small-town roots while discussing middle-class families. Here are transcripts from these two moments: "Where I come from, in Scranton and Claymont, the people don't live off the stock market. This isn't about me. There's a reason why he's bringing up all this malarkey. There's a reason for it. He doesn't want to talk about the substantive issues. It's not about his family and my family. It's about your family, and your family's hurting badly. If you're making less than, if you're a middle-class

['stock market']

True

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here.This topic came up once again during the final presidential debate of 2020. Twice during the debate, Biden mentioned his small-town roots while talking about middle-class families. Here are transcripts from these two moments:In the past, Trump has pushed an exaggerated version of this claim, saying that Biden "wasn't born here" in Scranton.For fans of "The Office," this is the same Scranton that serves as the home of the fictional paper company Dunder Mifflin. The New York Times reported:While the Bidens moved out of Scranton when he was 10 years old, the family maintained some connections to his hometown. In 1987, Jean Finnegan Biden, the former vice president's mother, told the Scrantonian Tribune, "Scranton's our hometown... we have fond memories of it." In 2008, Delaware's The News Journal published an article about Biden's hometown friends and his authentic connection to the city: Mon, Sep 1, 2008 Page 10 The News Journal (Wilmington, Delaware) Newspapers.comIn an interview with GQ, Biden talked about his childhood in Scranton and noted that his family spent most holidays and summers visiting friends in Scranton until he was about 16 years old. Biden also said that a few of his friends from Scranton were in his wedding:

Can sending a text with the word 'FOOD' assist in offering complimentary summer meals to children?

['A viral message on social media contained accurate information about how to access food for kids this summer.']

In late May 2017, Facebook users began sharing a message claiming that if you send a text message to a particular phone number, you would receive the address of a nearby location where school-aged children could get free meals during the summer. The message was typically worded like this: "If you have a school-aged student in need of breakfast and lunch this summer, simply text FOOD to 877877 and receive a message back with the location closest to where they can get free summer meals. Even if you aren't in need, someone else's kids are. No child deserves to go hungry, ever. This is a real phone number, a real program, and an accurate message. The text information service is run by No Kid Hungry, an initiative of the non-profit organization Share Our Strength. No Kid Hungry has access to information about tens of thousands of groups serving free meals nationwide as part of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Summer Food Service Program. Once the free meal providers register with the USDA, No Kid Hungry makes their location and hours available to the public via the 877-877 number. To use the service, text "FOOD" to 877-877 and enter your zip code when prompted. Spanish speakers can also text "COMIDA" to 877-877. You can also locate registered, licensed free meal providers using this interactive map on the USDA website. Unfortunately, your nearest free meal provider may not be in your town. This is because, by law, sites are only allowed in areas where 50% of schoolchildren or more are eligible for free or low-cost school meals, according to the USDA. You can check whether your local area is eligible to host a Summer Food Service Program site using this map. However, even if your neighborhood isn't eligible for a free meals provider, there is no restriction on you and your children traveling to the nearest site to get free meals there. The summer program is federally funded and administered by the USDA's Food and Nutrition Service, which also runs the National School Lunch Program and School Breakfast Program during the academic year, as well as the Child and Adult Care Food Program and the Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program. According to a spokesperson for the No Kid Hungry campaign, the Summer Food Service Program served 177 million free meals at 47,816 sites across the U.S. in 2016.

['share']

True

This is a real phone number, a real program, and an accurate message. The text information service is run by No Kid Hungry, an initiative of the non-profit organization Share Our Strength.No Kid Hungry has access to information about tens of thousands of groups serving free meals nationwide as part of the the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA) Summer Food Service Program.You can also locate registered, licensed free meal providers using this interactive map on the USDA website.Unfortunately, your nearest free meal provider may not be in your town. This is because, by law, sites are only allowed in areas where 50% of schoolchildren or more are eligible for free or low-cost school meals, according to the USDA. You can check whether your local area is eligible to host a Summer Food Service Program site, using this map.

No, Former NFL QB John Elway Is Not 'Broke'

['The misinformation stemmed from an online advertisement that was being paid for by unknown persons.']

In January 2022, an online advertisement displayed a picture of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway alongside the words, "Iconic NFL Players Who Went Broke." The ad was misleading clickbait, leading to a slideshow article on MoneyWise.com that again featured the same photograph of Elway. The headline read, "These Iconic NFL Players Lost It All." It wasn't until the last page of the lengthy article that Elway was mentioned; however, it said nothing about him running out of money or going "broke." Instead, it referenced that, in 2010, Elway fell victim to a Ponzi scheme orchestrated by a hedge fund manager named Sean Michael Mueller. The Associated Press reported that "he and a business partner gave Mueller $15 million," and that Mueller was later sentenced to 40 years in prison. The last page of the MoneyWise.com article also mentioned an ABC News article from 2016, which reported that Elway missed out on a potentially huge investment opportunity in 1998. Had he signed a deal with the Broncos to buy an ownership stake in the team, his investment might have been worth around $388 million by 2015, potentially yielding a "646 percent return on the 1998 investment, adjusted for inflation." As of early 2022, the former NFL great was employed as the president of football operations for the Broncos and had previously held the title of the team's general manager. There was no evidence that Elway was broke, nor did the lengthy MoneyWise.com article mention any such thing. Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with numerous pages. This practice is known as advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to earn more money from ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that attracted viewers.

['inflation']

False

In January 2022, an online advertisement showed a picture of former Denver Broncos quarterback John Elway next to the words, "Iconic NFL Players Who Went Broke." The ad was misleading clickbait.The ad led to a slideshow article on MoneyWise.com that again featured the same photograph of Elway. The headline read, "These Iconic NFL Players Lost It All."It wasn't until the last page of the long story that Elway was featured. However, it said nothing of him running out of money and going "broke."Instead, it referenced that, in 2010, Elway fell victim to a Ponzi scheme by a hedge fund manager named Sean Michael Mueller. The Associated Press reported that "he and a business partner gave Mueller $15 million," and that Mueller was later sentenced to 40 years in prison.The last page of the MoneyWise.com article also mentioned an ABC News article from 2016 that reported Elway missed out on a potentially huge investment opportunity in 1998. Had he signed a deal with the Broncos to buy an ownership stake in the team, his investment might have been worth around $388 million by the year 2015, potentially a "646 percent return on the 1998 investment, adjusted for inflation."As of early 2022, the former NFL great was employed as the president of football operations for the Broncos and had previously held the title of the team's general manager.Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

The claim that Osama bin Laden is the owner of Snapple is a rumor.

['Does Osama bin Laden own Snapple?']

Claim: Osama bin Laden owns Snapple. . Origins: Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.) rumored association But times change, and so do those whom society views as the evildoers of the hour. Though the KKK is as odious as ever, its particular brand of detestability has been eclipsed by that of the terrorists cowering in the mountains of Afghanistan. One of the many rumors born in the aftermath of the September 11 attack on America links Snapple with Osama bin Laden and calls for a grassroots boycott of this company's line of products. Although bombs seem the obvious way to go after those who perpetrated the terrorist attacks on America, the real key to their undoing may well be economic. But that's not nearly as visceral a solution as going into Afghanistan with a war cry and guns blazing, and it's not one which the average person can participate in or support in a tangible way, and so rumors like the one tying Snapple to Osama bin Laden help fill the void. The typical American wants to experience the sense of vindication that comes from toppling this manifestation of evil, and so calls to boycott companies which are rumored to be filling the war chests of bin Laden and his cronies therefore fall on highly receptive ears many want to feel they're part of the struggle, but the very nature of the battle denies them that opportunity. Becoming part of an economic boycott would restore at least a part of that yearning for participation. That type of rumor, though highly welcome, often outruns the facts. That is the case with the call to spurn Snapple: In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote: press release Snapple has never had and does not now have any direct or indirect relationship of any kind whatsoever with Osama bin Laden or any other terrorist group or supporter. That same press release contains the likely reason behind this particular blossoming of the "allied with evil" rumor: If the source of these rumors is over our terminated relationship with a Saudi Arabian food distributorship, let me clarify this once and for all. Some of our products along with products from other respected American beverage and food companies were distributed by a company that had an investment from The Saudi Binladin Group. Snapple has never had any reason to believe, nor do we now, that this company had any relationship of any kind with terrorists. Nonetheless, several weeks ago, we terminated our relationship with this distributorship. Those unfamiliar with the Binladin Group might conclude from its name that it is Osama bin Laden's corporate presence. In truth, the Binladin Group is one of the many corporate entities owned or participated in by any number of Osama bin Laden's relatives, many of whom spell their surnames as Binladin. The infamous terrorist hails from a family that is both very large and incredibly wealthy. Osama has 54 siblings, and untangling the web of the family's finances and business associations is nearly an impossible task. Though it cannot absolutely be ruled out some of the income flowing into any of these entities reaches Osama bin Laden, it is widely understood that he is the family's black sheep and that many members of this wide-reaching and far-flung assembly of relatives have utterly disowned him. Osama's half-brother, 35-year-old Abdullah Mohammed Binladin, the only member of the family to speak publicly about their notorious relative since September 11, said: "I affirm that the Binladin family and the Saudi Binladin Group have no relationship whatsoever with Osama or any of his activities. He shares no legal or beneficial interests with them or their assets or properties, and he is not directly or indirectly funded by them." As to who does own Snapple, it's now part of Cadbury Schweppes, a large UK corporation famous primarily for chocolate and carbonated beverages. Cadbury Schweppes is a publicly traded company on the London Exchange. It is therefore not owned by any one person, but by thousands. Snapple originated as Unadulterated Food Corporation in 1972 and was little more than a hobby enterprise begun by Leonard Marsh, Hyman Golden, and Arnold Greenberg, who at the time were selling juices to health food stores. The first of its famed teas wasn't introduced until 1987, and the success of that line changed the company. The concern was acquired by Quaker [Oats] in 1994, sold to Triarc in 1997, and sold again to Cadbury Schweppes in 2000. Untangling the web of who owns what will be one of the biggest tasks those charged with fighting terrorism on the economic front will face in the years to come. It is more than likely the effort will prove that at least some of the terrorists or those who provide their funding have holdings in a variety of American companies that are innocently unaware of the details of each of their minor shareholders' private lives. (The international world of finance being what it is, a diversified portfolio is a must, and that holds true for terrorists as well as for the law-abiding.) That will not mean that those companies whose shares turn up in the wrong hands support terrorism; merely that one of the nasties bought a bit of stock without their knowing who he really was. When such holdings come to light, there will be an outcry against those companies as those looking for someone to direct their anger towards will at least momentarily feel they've found someone deserving of their ire. They'll be wrong, but that will probably do little to stem the tide of criticism they'll unleash. Barbara "who let the dogs out?" Mikkelson Last updated: 21 April 2008 Sources: Dobbs, Michael and John Ward Anderson. "A Fugitive's Splintered Family Tree." The Washington Post. 30 September 2001 (p. A1). Dunley, Ruth. "Osama's 'The Black Sheep,' Brother Says." The Ottawa Citizen. 8 October 2001 (p. A6).

['finance']

False

Origins: Snapple, the popular beverage company begun in 1972, has been a target of spurious "owned by someone evil" rumors since 1992. Those earlier (and entirely baseless) rumors linked the company with the Ku Klux Klan, not an Arab terrorist. (The KKK-Snapple connection was but one of many similar slanders tying a number of innocent businesses to the KKK that particularrumored association was far from unique to Snapple.)In a lengthy Snapple press release, CEO Michael Weinstein wrote:

Did a Bird Poop on Biden?

["Something fell on the president's shoulder. Was it bird poop?"]

On April 12, 2022, a video went viral on social media that supposedly showed bird poop falling onto U.S. President Joe Biden's shoulder as he was speaking at an event in Iowa. We examined that video and photographs from the event and collected statements from White House officials and journalists. Here's what we learned: What landed on Biden's lapel was more likely a corn byproduct than bird poop. Biden was discussing the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to issue a waiver to allow for the production of E15 (a mixture of gasoline and ethanol) in an effort to lower gas prices when something wispy and white fell on his left shoulder. A video of the incident quickly went viral on Twitter as many users assumed that a bird had pooped on the president. But was that really bird poop? Here's what we've been able to find out. Biden was speaking at POET, a bioprocessing and manufacturing plant in Menlo, Iowa. We have not been able to determine the specific facility in which Biden was speaking, but it's important to note that this was an indoor event. Furthermore, Biden was standing directly beside a giant pile of processed corn. In fact, photographs from the event show that corn was actively falling from this pile during Biden's speech. The above-displayed photograph, taken by Mandel Ngan and available via Getty Images, was captioned: "A mound of processed corn is seen in the background as US President Joe Biden announces steps to ease rising consumer prices at POET Bioprocessing in Menlo, Iowa on April 12, 2022." Clay Masters, a reporter with Iowa Public Radio, captured additional photos of the scene before Biden's speech. It certainly seems plausible that what fell onto Biden was a piece of some sort of corn byproduct and not bird poop. Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper was at the event and told AGWired.com, an agriculture news site, that it was definitely distillers dried grain with solubles, or DDGS, that fell on Biden's lapel. AGWired reported: "Renewable Fuels Association President and CEO Geoff Cooper was an eyewitness in the distillers grains barn with President Biden, and he confirmed it was definitely DDGS responsible for spotting the POTUS lapel. 'We did see something falling from the ceiling, and it landed right there on his lapel, and I can confirm it was not a bird dropping,' said Cooper, who took this photo at the event, which shows the mound of DDGS off to Biden's left side and the spot on his jacket. It came just as President Biden started to talk about products made in America and the amount of corn used at the Menlo, Iowa POET plant." Shortly after this video went viral, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield posted a message on Twitter stating that it was corn, not bird poop, that fell on Biden's shoulder. Bedingfield said: "If you guys knew your way around a corn silo at all, you'd know it was corn." Justin Sink, Bloomberg's White House correspondent, came to the same conclusion, writing: "It was bits of corn flying around from the corn silo; the event was indoors." Iowa's Des Moines Register also reported that Biden's jacket was blemished by what he called "distillers grain," not bird poop. But it wasn't a "feathered fiend" relieving itself, as characterized by the Daily Mail, a British tabloid. While there were birds in the "giant barn" where Biden spoke, according to a Des Moines Register photographer who was at the event in Menlo, Iowa, the substance that stained Biden's jacket was, in fact, distillers grain. Distillers grain is "a co-product of the ethanol production process," according to the Iowa Corn Growers Association. The grain was piled 20 feet high at the site of Biden's speech. We examined photographs from Reuters, The Associated Press, and Getty Images to get a closer look at this corn/bird poop. Upon closer examination, the "bird poop" appears to be somewhat yellowish in color (like corn) and looks more like dust (i.e., from corn processing) than a liquid (i.e., bird poop). Here's a slow-motion video capturing the moment of impact.

['economy']

False

Biden was talking about the Environmental Protection Agency's plan to issue a waiver to allow for the production of E15 (a mixture of gasoline and ethanol) in an effort to lower gas prices, when something wispy and white fell on his left shoulder. A video of the incident quickly went viral on Twitter as many users assumed that a bird had pooped on the president:Biden was speaking at POET, a bioprocessing and manufacturing plant in Menlo, Iowa. We have not been able to determine the specific facility in which Biden was speaking, but it's important to note that this was an indoor event (see photo below).The above-displayed photograph, taken by Mandel Ngan and available via Getty Images, was captioned: "A mound of processed corn is seen in the background as US President Joe Biden announces steps to ease rising consumer prices at POET Bioprocessing in Menlo, Iowa on April 12, 2022."Shortly after this video went viral, White House communications director Kate Bedingfield posted a message on Twitter stating that it was corn, not bird poop, that fell on Biden's shoulder. Justin Sink, Bloomberg's White House correspondent, came to the same conclusion, writing: "It was bits of corn flying around from the corn silo; the event was indoors."Iowa's Des Moines Register also reported that Biden's jacket was blemished by what he called "distillers grain," not bird poop.

Were the Koch Brothers the purchasers of NPR?

['Did the Koch brothers buy NPR and force the broadcaster to stop covering climate change?']

I just saw a post on Facebook: THE KOCH BROTHERS BUY NPR. "After making large donations to National Public Radio (NPR), the radio network charged with delivering an alternative viewpoint to Americans, NPR has slashed its environmental and climate change coverage. Is anyone surprised? On 28 November 2014, the Facebook group Vocal Progressives posted the meme displayed above to its page without corroborating information or news links, alarming many readers who feared corporate interests had compromised the integrity of National Public Radio (NPR). Referenced in the image are Charles Koch and his brother David, the politically active owners of the corporation Koch Industries. David Koch is a board member of several organizations, among them the political advocacy group Americans for Prosperity, which opposes the imposition of taxes levied to address climate change issues. While David Koch (and to a lesser extent Charles) remains openly engaged on specific political issues, the claim regarding NPR and the Kochs is of dubious origin. In part, it appears to trace back to an article published on 24 October 2014 on Inside Climate News titled "NPR Reduces Its Environment Team to One Reporter." The move to shift reporters off the environment beat was driven by an interest in covering other fields more in depth, said Anne Gudenkauf, senior supervising editor of NPR's science desk. "We'll think of a project we want to do and the kind of staff that we need to do it, and then organize ourselves that way," she said. "One of the things we always do is change in response to the changing world." Gudenkauf also said she doesn't "feel like [the environment] necessarily requires dedicated reporters" because so many other staffers cover the subject along with their other beats. The article in question addressed NPR's decision to reduce its allocation of coverage to climate change as a separate beat in favor of folding that topic into standard news coverage; nowhere in the article were David Koch or Charles Koch mentioned by name, despite the presence of several other articles on the site covering the Koch brothers' interests in the Keystone XL pipeline environmental issue. As such, it's reasonable to assume that had the Koch brothers been relevant at all to Inside Climate News's NPR story published in October 2014, the publication would have made that connection at the time. Although Inside Climate News's piece was critical of NPR's decision to combine climate coverage with other news, the move was not framed as one made under any political or funding pressure whatsoever. Three days after the original Inside Climate News article was published, an unrelated article involving the Koch brothers and NPR appeared in a different publication. Titled "Did You Hear the Koch Brothers Just Gave a Million Bucks to NPR to Cover Healthcare?", that piece was deliberately misleading in its frame: It opened by explaining that the million-dollar Koch donation hadn't happened, but another organization had donated a large sum to NPR. The near-concurrent appearance of the two articles may have lent credence to the idea that NPR slashed its climate change coverage to appease the Kochs in October 2014. Another article, published in May 2013, may have fueled the belief that NPR's reduction of dedicated environmental coverage stemmed from Koch donations. The New Yorker ran a piece at the time about PBS affiliate WNET's handling of content involving the Kochs. In that item, WNET's president Neal Shapiro disclosed conversations with David Koch about a 2013 film release. That Friday, Shapiro initially said, he called Koch at his office and told him that the Gibney film "was going to be controversial," noting, "You're going to be a big part of this thing." Shapiro offered to show him the trailer and added that he hoped to arrange "some sort of on-air roundtable discussion of it, to provide other points of view." It could air immediately after the documentary. (Shapiro told me, "We did this after Ken Burns's film on baseball, too. We like to have a local angle.") Shapiro asked Koch, "Do you want to be involved?" He also offered Koch the opportunity to provide a written response, which the station could air after the show. Shapiro acknowledges that his call to Koch was unusual. Although many prominent New Yorkers are portrayed in "Park Avenue," he said that he "only just called David Koch. He's on our board. He's the biggest main character. No one else, just David Koch. Because he's a trustee. It's a courtesy." Shapiro, who joined WNET six years ago from NBC News, added, "I can't remember doing anything like this. I can't remember another documentary centered around New York and key people in the city, and such controversial topics." However, that article addressed content pertaining to the Koch brothers' overall influence and was not specific to climate change, and the controversial claims made in the piece concerned PBS, not NPR. Additionally, in NPR's ethics manual, guidelines for the interaction of funding sources and NPR journalists are detailed: Our journalism is made possible by a diverse coalition of funding sources, including donations from members of the public, grants from foundations and government agencies, and paid sponsorships and underwriting. While we value all who support our work, those who fund us do so in the knowledge that our journalism serves only the public. We believe our strength as a business is premised solely on high-quality, independent journalism in the public interest. All NPR employees, journalists as well as sponsorship, communications, and development staff, are committed first and foremost to that service. At NPR, the journalists, including senior news managers, have full and final authority over all journalistic decisions. We work with all other divisions of the company towards the goal of supporting and protecting our journalism. This means we communicate with our sponsorship and development departments to identify areas where we hope to expand our reporting. It also means we may take part in promotional activities or events such as coordinated fund drives, listener support spots, and public radio audience-building initiatives. But we observe a clear boundary line: NPR journalists interact with funders only to further our editorial goals, not to serve the agendas of those who support us. NPR also addressed the specific issue of whether the Kochs were major donors (or donated at all) during the controversy over coverage of the People's Climate March in September 2014. At that time, NPR confirmed that while critics believed David and Charles Koch were NPR donors, there was no record of the Koch brothers having made any donation (large or small) to NPR, and the broadcasters clarified their position on climate change and their objectives when covering environmental issues. In a related note, many emailers seemed to think that the brothers David and Charles Koch are donors to NPR. If so, no one at NPR knows about it. The development office did several days of searching and could find no record of their giving. Not that the Kochs couldn't give if they wanted to. The critics might be confusing NPR with WGBH, the public TV and radio station in Boston; David Koch is a long-time supporter and board member there and formerly of other public radio stations like WNET. In its coverage of climate change, NPR long ago concluded that, based on the science, climate change is real and we humans are contributing to it. Some of the email writers seem to want NPR to be an advocate on the issue, but beyond drawing attention to it, NPR isn't one and shouldn't be. It reports dissenting views when newsworthy, though in its framing of stories overall and in its emphasis on the facts, I find the coverage avoids the trap of "false equivalence." As of 2018, David Koch's name no longer appears on WGBH's Board of Trustees' page. However, Koch still supports the PBS science series "NOVA," which PBS says affects its direction not at all.

['taxes']

False

While David Koch (and to a lesser extent Charles) remains openly engaged on specific political issues, the claim regarding NPR and the Kochs is of dubious origin. In part, it appears to trace back to an article published on 24 October 2014 on Inside Climate News titled "NPR Reduces Its Environment Team to One Reporter":Three days after the original Inside Climate News article was published, an unrelated article involving the Koch brothers and NPR appeared in a different publication. Titled "Did You Hear the Koch Brothers Just Gave a Million Bucks to NPR to Cover Healthcare?", that piece was deliberately misleading in its frame: It opened by explaining the million dollar Koch donation hadn't happened, but another organization had donated a large sum to NPR. The near-concurrent appearance of the two articles may have loaned credence to the idea that NPR slashed its climate change coverage to appease the Kochs in October of 2014.Another article, published in May 2013, may have fueled the belief NPR's reduction of dedicated environmental coverage stemmed from Koch donations. The New Yorker ran a piece at the time about PBS affiliate WNET's handling of content involving the Kochs. In that item, WNET's president Neal Shapiro disclosed conversations with David Koch about a 2013 film release:Additionally, in NPR's ethics manual, guidelines for the interaction of funding sources and NPR journalists are detailed:As of 2018, David Koch's name no longer appears on the WGBH's Board of Trustees' page. However, Koch still supports the PBS science series "NOVA" which PBS says affects its direction not at all.

Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughters college tuition on just two weeks wages.

[]

Democratic presidential candidate Martin O'Malley recently offered a striking comparison regarding American families and college tuition. Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughter's college tuition with just two weeks' wages, O'Malley wrote in a post on Medium. Today, we are saddling our graduating kids and their families with more than $1.3 trillion in loan debt. We decided to take a closer look. What did tuition cost? The easier part of this equation to nail down is the average cost of college tuition. According to the U.S. Education Department, average undergraduate tuition and fees—excluding room and board—in the 1965-66 school year was $607 per year for a four-year college (public and private) and $203 for a two-year college. (Adding room and board bumps up those figures to $1,375 and $884, respectively, but O'Malley said tuition, so we won't consider room and board.) What did the average GM worker make? According to an article in the Aug. 25, 1964, edition of the Chicago Tribune, the average hourly wage in the auto industry that year was $3.01. That grew a bit after a new union contract was negotiated later that year, but a figure in that ballpark is about right for the time frame O'Malley was discussing, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the industry and labor group at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich. Historical wage data from Ford, for instance, shows that the base wage for a major assembler was $2.91 an hour in 1965. Dziczek noted that workers in durable-goods manufacturing averaged 44 hours per week in 1965, with time-and-a-half for the final four hours. So a $3.10-an-hour wage (accounting for the increase in the 1964 UAW contract) would work out to $142.60 per week, or $285.20 for the two-week period O'Malley cites. If you ignore taxes—questionable policy, but one we'll grant O'Malley for the sake of argument—then two weeks of average GM pay would have been enough to pay for one year at the typical two-year college in 1965. However, it would not be enough to pay for a year at a typical four-year college, which would take a little more than four weeks of work. What does the O'Malley campaign say? The O'Malley campaign stated they took the wage number from a column by University of California-Berkeley economist Robert Reich, who also served as labor secretary under President Bill Clinton. In 2014, Reich wrote that

['National', 'Corporations', 'Corrections and Updates', 'Education', 'Income', 'Workers']

True

Fifty years ago, the average GM employee could pay for a year of a son or daughters college tuition on just two weeks' wages, OMalley wrote in apost on Medium. Today, we are saddling our graduating kids and their families with more than $1.3 trillion in loan debt.According to theU.S. Education Department, average undergraduate tuition and fees -- excluding room and board -- in the 1965-66 school year was $607 per year for a four-year college (public and private) and $203 for a two-year college. (Adding room and board bumps up those figures to $1,375 and $884, respectively, but OMalley said tuition, so we wont consider room and board.)According to anarticlein the Aug. 25, 1964, edition of theChicago Tribune, the average hourly wage in the auto industry that year was $3.01. That grew a bit after anew union contractwas negotiated later that year, but a figure in that ballpark is about right for the time frame OMalley was talking about, said Kristin Dziczek, director of the industry and labor group at the Center for Automotive Research in Ann Arbor, Mich.Historical wage datafrom Ford, for instance, shows that the base wage for a major assembler was $2.91 an hour in 1965.But that works out to $4.66 an hourin 1965 dollars, and contemporary evidence suggests that wage is about 50 percent too high.Meanwhile, on the tuition side of the equation, the OMalley campaign said that one year of in-state, undergraduate tuition atUniversity of Iowain the 1964-65 school year cost $340, and that this was the case for other states, as well, such as New Hampshire.

Did Daughter of WEF's Klaus Schwab Say 'Permanent Climate Lockdowns' Are 'Coming'?

['The lockdowns are coming "whether you like it or not," Nicole Schwab reportedly warned. ']

Conspiracy-minded social media accounts rehashed a tired claim about the World Economic Forum (WEF) in late July 2023 that, per Nicole Schwab (the daughter of that organization's founder and chairman), the group would be mandating "climate lockdowns" in the near future: rehashed The WEF is an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that, it says, "engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas." While the organization has no actual governmental power to institute any of the policies it is alleged to be forcing on the populace, the prominence of its members and the wealth of the companies it works with have made it the source of myriad conspiracy theories. it says "Climate lockdown" claims, frequently leveled against the WEF and other governments, are growing in popularity. The basic notion is that COVID-19 lockdowns were a test by elites to see how much tyranny they could level against the global populace without resistance, and that lockdowns predicated on climate emergencies would be next. growing This conspiracy theory gained wider exposure in February 2022, when The Hill published an opinion piece by writer Kristin Tate titled "Coming Soon: Climate Lockdowns?" The piece, citing vague climate initiative ideas or statements linked to Bill Gates and the Red Cross as evidence, argued: published The past two years have been a checklist for the worst impulses of government and public sentiment. COVID allowed for supposedly temporary measures to morph into two years of "emergency" restrictions. But what if COVID was only the opening act, and another proclaimed crisis is the main event? Implementing significant but partial restrictions, one by one, in the name of the common good can allow for encompassing government control that results in relatively little backlash. Fear over climate change could lead to long-term soft lockdowns, given the precedent of immense growth of government power and significant support for sweeping state actions. As reported by NBC News in July 2023, people who promote these claims are "a growing group that evolved out of anti-vaccine protests and has energized a campaign against environmental measures across Britain and elsewhere." Many pushing these claims conflate the concept of a "15-minute city" with WEF-mandated lockdowns, as reported by Logically Facts: reported reported 15-minute cities, or polycentric neighborhoods, aim to offer basic services, including healthcare, public transport, and recreational spaces, no more than a quarter-hour walk from home. However, despite this proposed convenience, conspiratorial beliefs about the concept are rife. Supporters of the conspiracy believe that the World Economic Forum a supposed network of evil elites will remove people's freedoms and lock them in their homes under the pretext of climate change. As a result, the term "climate lockdown" has been a magnet for conspiracy-minded social media users, and this fact is regularly exploited by clickbait conspiracy outlets. Among the most prolific of these outlets, a network of websites currently running under the moniker The People's Voice, is responsible for the claim shared widely on social media that Schwab's daughter made any mention of a "climate lockdown." responsible The headline claim of that story does not match, in any sense, the statement from which it is allegedly derived. Nicole Schwab is a member of the World Economic Forum and the head of a climate-based initiative under its roof. In a roundtable discussion, she referenced a 2020 WEF initiative known as the "Great Reset," explaining that the pandemic exposed weaknesses about how the world prepares for disaster and opportunities to prepare for the next disaster: 2020 WEF initiative This crisis has shown us that first of all, things can shift very rapidly when we put our minds to it and when we feel the immediate emergency to our livelihoods. And second, that, clearly the system that we had before, is not sustainable. So I see it as a tremendous opportunity to really, to have this Great Reset and to use the huge flows of money, to use the increased levers that policymakers have today in a way that was not possible before, to create a change that is not incremental, but that we can look back and we can say, this is the moment where we really started to position nature at the core of the economy. Because she never mentioned climate lockdowns in those statements and never stated that they were "coming whether you like it or not," we have rated this assertion as. How 15-Minute Cities Became a Conspiratorial Talking Point. https://www.logicallyfacts.com/en/analysis/15-minute-cities-conspiratorial-talking-point. Accessed 31 July 2023. "How 'climate Lockdowns' Became the New Battleground for Conspiracy-Driven Protest Movement." NBC News, 2 July 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-lockdowns-became-new-battleground-conspiracy-driven-protest-mo-rcna80370. "Klaus Schwab's Daughter: 'Permanent Climate Lockdowns Coming Whether You Like It or Not.'" The People's Voice, 30 July 2023, https://thepeoplesvoice.tv/klaus-schwabs-daughter-permanent-climate-lockdowns-coming-whether-you-like-it-or-not/. Kristin Tate. "Coming Soon: Climate Lockdowns?" The Hill, 2 Feb. 2022, https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/592011-coming-soon-climate-lockdowns/. "The Great Reset." World Economic Forum, https://www.weforum.org/focus/the-great-reset/. Accessed 31 July 2023.

['economy']

False

Conspiracy-minded social media accounts rehashed a tired claim about the World Economic Forum (WEF) in late July 2023 that, per Nicole Schwab (the daughter of that organization's founder and chairman), the group would be mandating "climate lockdowns" in the near future:The WEF is an international Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that, it says, "engages the foremost political, business, cultural and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas." While the organization has no actual governmental power to institute any of the policies it is alleged to be forcing on the populace, the prominence of its members and the wealth of the companies it works with have made it the source of myriad conspiracy theories."Climate lockdown" claims, frequently leveled against the WEF and other governments, are growing in popularity. The basic notion is that COVID-19 lockdowns were a test by elites to see how much tyranny they could level against the global populace without resistance, and that lockdowns predicated on climate emergencies would be next.This conspiracy theory gained wider exposure in February 2022, when The Hill published an opinion piece by writer Kristin Tate titled "Coming Soon: Climate Lockdowns?" The piece, citing vague climate initiative ideas or statements linked to Bill Gates and the Red Cross as evidence, argued:As reported by NBC News in July 2023, people who promote these claims are "a growing group that evolved out of anti-vaccine protests and has energized a campaign against environmental measures across Britain and elsewhere." Many pushing these claims conflate the concept of a "15-minute city" with WEF-mandated lockdowns, as reported by Logically Facts:As a result, the term "climate lockdown" has been a magnet for conspiracy-minded social media users, and this fact is regularly exploited by clickbait conspiracy outlets. Among the most prolific of these outlets, a network of websites currently running under the moniker The People's Voice, is responsible for the claim shared widely on social media that Schwab's daughter made any mention of a "climate lockdown."The headline claim of that story does not match, in any sense, the statement from which it is allegedly derived. Nicole Schwab is a member of the World Economic Forum and the head of a climate-based initiative under its roof. In a roundtable discussion, she referenced a 2020 WEF initiative known as the "Great Reset," explaining that the pandemic exposed weaknesses about how the world prepares for disaster and opportunities to prepare for the next disaster:

Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old.

[]

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper called for more money to renovate the states aging public schools during hisState of the State addresson Feb. 25. Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old, Cooper said. That means theyre still using the schools you and I went to. We wondered whether the states public schools are actually that old, so we decided to check out Coopers numbers ourselves. As it turns out, the data is not so easy to come by. We started with Jamal Little, the governors spokesman, who told us that the information about the ages of public schools came from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, which collected that data in 2016 while compiling itsmost recent surveyon school facility needs. Little gave us a table that said 949 of 2,306 public schools that reported construction dates were at least 50 years old (325 schools did not report their dates). He said the table came from the Department of Public Instruction but was not publicly available online. According to the table, about 41 percent of the schools that reported construction dates are more than 50 years old. But Drew Elliot, communications director for the Department of Public Instruction, said he could not confirm the table came from his department. He said he believes his office could get those numbers or something very close to it but could not validate them without a weeks time. We have no reason to think that his numbers are off, he said. Nothing in there looks anomalous to what we know about the age of school buildings in North Carolina. We wanted more definitive evidence, so we asked Elliot for the data the state did have. He sent us a copy of thedepartments list of construction datesso we could crunch the numbers for ourselves. That wasnt easy. The list assigns multiple construction dates to each school, and its not immediately clear what each date refers to. But Elliot said the dates correspond to construction of separate structures and that the earliest date listed for each school would offer the best approximation of the schools age. So, we did our best to sort through the raw numbers. It turns out that the number of old schools may actually be larger than Cooper claimed. Out of 2,631 total schools, we counted 2,299 that had construction dates listed beside them. And judging by the earliest dates listed for each, 1,118 of those 2,299 schools were built during or before 1969, making them at least 50 years old. That means that, by our calculations, nearly half the public schools are greater than 50 years old. But because the dates on the list were not labeled, even our calculations may be imperfect. Also, the totals could change with more information about the schools that did not report their ages for the 2016 survey. And theres potentially a big caveat because some schools have been renovated since their original construction, making them newer than their age suggests. Cooper said, Right now, four in 10 public schools in our state are at least 50 years old. The raw numbers from the department the best information available put Coopers statement in the right ballpark and showed it may even be an underestimate. But there are some uncertainties. So we rate this statement Mostly True. This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. To offer ideas for fact checks, email[email protected].

['Education', 'State Budget', 'North Carolina']

True

North Carolina Gov. Roy Cooper called for more money to renovate the states aging public schools during hisState of the State addresson Feb. 25.We started with Jamal Little, the governors spokesman, who told us that the information about the ages of public schools came from the North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, which collected that data in 2016 while compiling itsmost recent surveyon school facility needs.We wanted more definitive evidence, so we asked Elliot for the data the state did have. He sent us a copy of thedepartments list of construction datesso we could crunch the numbers for ourselves.This story was produced by the North Carolina Fact-Checking Project, a partnership of McClatchy Carolinas, the Duke University Reporters Lab and PolitiFact. The NC Local News Lab Fund and the International Center for Journalists provide support for the project, which shares fact-checks with newsrooms statewide. To offer ideas for fact checks, email[email protected].

Did a Portland Art Gallery Display an Artwork Depicting President Trump's Throat Being Slit?

["The controversial artwork was removed from the gallery's window after the business received numerous threats over it."]

In mid-July 2018, a controversy erupted over a graphic artwork displayed in the window of a Portland art gallery that depicted the violent slitting of President Donald Trump's throat with a knife. Although the story was covered by multiple news organizations, many viewers learned of it only through undetailed social media postings. This work truly did appear on the window of an art gallery in Portland. It was created by an artist known as "Compton Creep" and was displayed at the One Grand Gallery in Portland, Oregon, as part of a "Fuck You Mr. President" exhibit that opened on July 13, 2018. An art gallery in Portland, Oregon, faced criticism for displaying a piece of artwork in the window that depicted President Donald Trump's throat being cut with a knife, with the words "F**k Trump" inscribed underneath. The One Grand Gallery, located at 1000 E Burnside Street in Portland, Oregon, had a decal of Trump being slashed in the throat with a knife on its window. The photo of the artwork surfaced on Twitter on Tuesday, with many people condemning the gallery for posting the violent image. The "Fuck You Mr. President" exhibit featured a number of works critical of President Trump, and the gallery explained in an open call for submissions via their Instagram page that profits from the exhibit would be split between Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Law Center. The gallery was particularly criticized for displaying the violent artwork in a window that faced a public street. The controversial decal is no longer on display in the gallery's window, having been removed after reports of violent threats. One Grand Gallery on East Burnside had the image in their window but has since removed it after they say they received threats of violence. Gallery organizers stated that proceeds from this exhibition would go to non-profit groups that have lost funding under the Trump administration. A man identified as the founder of the gallery similarly told KPTV that the gallery had received "continuous threats" over the image. According to a man who identified himself as the One Grand Gallery's founder, who refused to give his name and hid his face from a TV crew, the graphic image was taken down following continuous threats and a request from his landlord. The man also declined to explain why the gallery displayed the image in a window that faced a public street and sidewalk. Reporter Tyler Dumont asked, "But, I mean, you felt strong enough to put this out here?" The gallery founder responded, "Yeah, but people that are responding are responding with such anger and violence. People want the gallery to go up in flames with my family." KATU reported that in addition to the threats, the gallery also received a warning from the building's owners stating that the display of the artwork was a violation of the gallery's lease. The owner of the building said that as soon as he found out about the image, he told the gallery they had 12 hours to remove it or they would be in breach of their lease. Artist Compton Creep said of his work, "It should provoke your mind; even if it makes you uncomfortable, it should be thought-provoking ... It's just art, man. If you don't like it, don't look at it. If you dig it, cool."

['profit']

True

This work truly did appear on the window of an art gallery in Portland. It was created by an artist known as "Compton Creep" and was displayed at the One Grand Gallery in Portland, Oregon, as part of a "Fuck You Mr. President" exhibit which opened on 13 July 2018:The "Fuck You Mr President" exhibit featured a number of works critical of President Trump, and the gallery explained in an open call for submissions via their Instagram page that profits from the exhibit would be split between Planned Parenthood, the ACLU, and the National Immigration Law Center:The gallery was particularly criticized for displaying the violent artwork in a window that faced onto a public street. The controversial decal is no longer on display in the gallery's window, having been removed after reports of violent threats:A man identified as the founder of the gallery similarly told KPTV that the gallery had received "continuous threats" over the image:Artist Compton Creep said of his work that "It should provoke your mind, even if it makes you uncomfortable, it should be thought provoking ... It's just art man, if you don't like it, don't look at it. If you dig it, cool."

Beto O'Rourke's 'Reality Check'

['A widely-shared Facebook meme offered allegations about a rising Democratic politician in Texas.']

Democratic congressman Beto O'Rourke of Texas came to national prominence in 2018 through his high-profile campaign to unseat incumbent Republican U.S. senator Ted Cruz. During the course of his campaign, the Democratic candidate has been confronted with various claims and allegations about himself and his family. One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018:A spokesperson for O'Rourke's campaign described the meme as "factually incorrect in countless ways" and largely referred us to several existing news reports about the allegations. The following is our breakdown of the five sections contained in the meme.O'Rourke adopted the name "Beto" to appeal to Latino voters: The meme claimed:NOT HISPANIC"Robert O'Rourke" became "Beto" for his political campaigns and on the ballot, a tactic that gives the false impression he's Latino, misleading voters in a state with many Hispanics.In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.")O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.)O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s.A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design.After checking the archives of the El Paso Times, we found multiple references to "Beto O'Rourke" between 1986 and 2004, when O'Rourk was either a child or a businessman and had never run for political office.In March, the campaign of O'Rourke's Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, launched a radio jingle that poked fun at the name "Beto" and included the following lyrics: "I remember reading stories/Liberal Robert wanted to fit in/So he changed his name to 'Beto'/And hid it with a grin ...":FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert ORourke, to Texas voters.Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018The next day, O'Rourke posted a photograph of himself as a young boy, wearing a sweater with the nickname "Beto" stitched into it, establishing that, contrary to false accusation, he did not "change his name" for political reasons:pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018O'Rourke used his father's connections to avoid trial for two felonies: UNPROVENThe meme claimed:FELONY ARREST RECORDAs an adult in his mid-20s, O'Rourke was caught breaking into the University of Texas El Paso. Charged with breaking and entering and burglary, he mysteriously avoided trial. A few years later, arrested for drunk driving, he again walked with a "deal." Being the song of a powerful, politically connected County Judge apparently has benefits. O'Rourke dismisses his felony convictions as "youthful pranks" and "mistakes"; it's old news, move along, nothing to see here.O'Rourke has indeed been arrested for burglary and drunk driving, a history which he has discussed several times over the course of his political career, as his spokesperson told us: "While charges were dismissed, this is something that Beto has always publicly addressed -- during his initial run for the city council, his run for Congress, in profiles written about him, during dozens of interviews, and at town halls across the state during this campaign."In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote:Twenty-three years ago I was arrested for attempted forcible entry after jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. I spent a night in the El Paso County Jail, was able to make bail the next day, and was released. Three years later, I was arrested for drunk driving -- a far more serious mistake for which there is no excuse.According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996.O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped.In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene:State and local police reports obtained by the Chronicle and Express-News show that ORourke was driving drunk at what a witness called a high rate of speed in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile from the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that ORourke had tried to drive away from the scene. O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time.In the case of his DWI arrest, O'Rourke did not face prison time because he completed an alternative adjudication program. It's not clear why the attempted burglary charge was dropped in 1996 (we asked the O'Rourke campaign about this but didn't receive a response to that particular question in time for publication). However, we could find no evidence that O'Rourke's father had any role in either case, nor did the meme offer any evidence.Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest.O'Rourke violated 'insider trading' laws: The meme claimed:INSIDER TRADING VIOLATIONSAfter being sent a memo specifically prohibiting investment in Twitter's IPO [initial public offering], O'Rourke made a tidy one-day profit on it. When uncovered by a government watchdog, he quickly turned himself in. This violation of the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) is apparently a habit, as there are several other instances of this behavior; he characterizes them as mistakes.Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress.But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him:U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke alerted the House Ethics Committee that he might have violated a new law restricting members of Congress from engaging in certain stock transactions.It is the first case to come before the committee involving a 2012 law that prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings, or IPOs, other than what is available to members of the public generally, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog group.ORourke, a Democrat whose district covers a portion of western Texas, reported the possible violation after Legistorm, an online news site that tracks congressional issues, informed him that his Nov. 15 disclosure saying he participated in the Twitter IPO earlier in the month might indicate a violation of a 2012 law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act.The freshman congressman also reported that, through his stockbroker, he participated in six other initial public offerings this year. In an interview, ORourke said he didnt see a Nov. 5 memo from the House Ethics Committee warning members of Congress about participating in IPOs.On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares:Upon receiving the letter from the Committee today I instructed my broker to sell all remaining shares, which he did. I then sent a check for the full amount of the profit from all IPO trades this year to the U.S. Treasury by overnight mail. Copies of the trades and the check have been sent to the Ethics Committee.I apologize to the House of Representatives and to the people I represent for not exercising due diligence. I will be much more thorough in the future concerning financial transactions and do my best to ensure that I am in full compliance with all rules covering members of Congress.Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day.Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13."A condom full of "white powder" was found in O'Rourke's father's car: trueThe meme claimed:FATHER'S DRUG SCANDALO'Rourke's father, while county judge, had a 2-way radio installed in his Jeep. Installers discovered a condom packed with a "white powder" concealed in his vehicle and called police. Much to the dismay of investigating officers, the Captain on duty, a friend and political ally of O'Rourke, flushed the evidence down the toilet and dropped the charges. The Captain was subsequently suspended and tried for tampering with evidence.This section of the meme relates to incidents which took place in 1983, when Beto O'Rourke was 10 years old, and which had absolutely nothing to do with him.Nevertheless, it's true that in February 1983, El Paso County Sheriff's Captain Willie Hill told two police officers to get rid of a condom full of white powder which they had found in Pat O'Rourke's car while they were installing a radio in it. The officers suspected the powder to be heroin or cocaine, but the substance was never tested to determine its true nature.Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio.O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair."O'Rourke was involved in a family business that was prosecuted for tax violations: The meme claimed:FAMILY BUSINESS FEDERALLY PROSECUTEDO'Rourke's family business "Charlotte's Furniture," a store "Beto," his mother and sister are involved with, was charged in 2010 with altering records to avoid IRS reporting. Investigators found they accepted cash payments, in one instance over $630,000 from an unnamed individual (that's a LOT of furniture)! Found guilty on 15 counts, the sentence was a $250,000 fine and 5 years' probation. Around the time O'Rourke announced as a senate candidate, the business was shuttered and its records became unavailable. O'Rourke passes the prosecution off as a "mistake"; it's been covered, move along, nothing to see here.The meme got the basic facts right about the federal tax case against Charlotte's, but it falsely claimed that Congressman O'Rourke was personally "involved" in the company. He was not.In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative.The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold.In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended.In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction.According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke.Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either.The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso.However, his part ownership of the Peppertree Square property (which does not appear to entail any management function in any of the businesses located there) did not accrue until 31 December 2012, more than six years after the conclusion of the I.R.S. reporting violations at Charlotte's. One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018: meme A spokesperson for O'Rourke's campaign described the meme as "factually incorrect in countless ways" and largely referred us to several existing news reports about the allegations. The following is our breakdown of the five sections contained in the meme. The meme claimed: NOT HISPANIC "Robert O'Rourke" became "Beto" for his political campaigns and on the ballot, a tactic that gives the false impression he's Latino, misleading voters in a state with many Hispanics. In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.") Statement O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.) CNN noted listed O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s. New York Times A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design. article article After checking the archives of the El Paso Times, we found multiple references to "Beto O'Rourke" between 1986 and 2004, when O'Rourk was either a child or a businessman and had never run for political office. In March, the campaign of O'Rourke's Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, launched a radio jingle that poked fun at the name "Beto" and included the following lyrics: "I remember reading stories/Liberal Robert wanted to fit in/So he changed his name to 'Beto'/And hid it with a grin ...": FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert ORourke, to Texas voters. Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek #KeepTexasRed https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018 March 7, 2018 The next day, O'Rourke posted a photograph of himself as a young boy, wearing a sweater with the nickname "Beto" stitched into it, establishing that, contrary to false accusation, he did not "change his name" for political reasons: pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018 March 7, 2018 The meme claimed: FELONY ARREST RECORD As an adult in his mid-20s, O'Rourke was caught breaking into the University of Texas El Paso. Charged with breaking and entering and burglary, he mysteriously avoided trial. A few years later, arrested for drunk driving, he again walked with a "deal." Being the song of a powerful, politically connected County Judge apparently has benefits. O'Rourke dismisses his felony convictions as "youthful pranks" and "mistakes"; it's old news, move along, nothing to see here. O'Rourke has indeed been arrested for burglary and drunk driving, a history which he has discussed several times over the course of his political career, as his spokesperson told us: "While charges were dismissed, this is something that Beto has always publicly addressed -- during his initial run for the city council, his run for Congress, in profiles written about him, during dozens of interviews, and at town halls across the state during this campaign." In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote: op-ed Twenty-three years ago I was arrested for attempted forcible entry after jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. I spent a night in the El Paso County Jail, was able to make bail the next day, and was released. Three years later, I was arrested for drunk driving -- a far more serious mistake for which there is no excuse. According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996. records records O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped. arrested In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene: cited State and local police reports obtained by the Chronicle and Express-News show that ORourke was driving drunk at what a witness called a high rate of speed in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile from the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that ORourke had tried to drive away from the scene. O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time. In the case of his DWI arrest, O'Rourke did not face prison time because he completed an alternative adjudication program. It's not clear why the attempted burglary charge was dropped in 1996 (we asked the O'Rourke campaign about this but didn't receive a response to that particular question in time for publication). However, we could find no evidence that O'Rourke's father had any role in either case, nor did the meme offer any evidence. Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest. judge governing body The meme claimed: INSIDER TRADING VIOLATIONS After being sent a memo specifically prohibiting investment in Twitter's IPO [initial public offering], O'Rourke made a tidy one-day profit on it. When uncovered by a government watchdog, he quickly turned himself in. This violation of the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) is apparently a habit, as there are several other instances of this behavior; he characterizes them as mistakes. Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress. STOCK Act But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him: violation U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke alerted the House Ethics Committee that he might have violated a new law restricting members of Congress from engaging in certain stock transactions. It is the first case to come before the committee involving a 2012 law that prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings, or IPOs, other than what is available to members of the public generally, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog group. ORourke, a Democrat whose district covers a portion of western Texas, reported the possible violation after Legistorm, an online news site that tracks congressional issues, informed him that his Nov. 15 disclosure saying he participated in the Twitter IPO earlier in the month might indicate a violation of a 2012 law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act. The freshman congressman also reported that, through his stockbroker, he participated in six other initial public offerings this year. In an interview, ORourke said he didnt see a Nov. 5 memo from the House Ethics Committee warning members of Congress about participating in IPOs. On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares: wrote Upon receiving the letter from the Committee today I instructed my broker to sell all remaining shares, which he did. I then sent a check for the full amount of the profit from all IPO trades this year to the U.S. Treasury by overnight mail. Copies of the trades and the check have been sent to the Ethics Committee. I apologize to the House of Representatives and to the people I represent for not exercising due diligence. I will be much more thorough in the future concerning financial transactions and do my best to ensure that I am in full compliance with all rules covering members of Congress. Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day. filed Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13." indicate The meme claimed: FATHER'S DRUG SCANDAL O'Rourke's father, while county judge, had a 2-way radio installed in his Jeep. Installers discovered a condom packed with a "white powder" concealed in his vehicle and called police. Much to the dismay of investigating officers, the Captain on duty, a friend and political ally of O'Rourke, flushed the evidence down the toilet and dropped the charges. The Captain was subsequently suspended and tried for tampering with evidence. This section of the meme relates to incidents which took place in 1983, when Beto O'Rourke was 10 years old, and which had absolutely nothing to do with him. Nevertheless, it's true that in February 1983, El Paso County Sheriff's Captain Willie Hill told two police officers to get rid of a condom full of white powder which they had found in Pat O'Rourke's car while they were installing a radio in it. The officers suspected the powder to be heroin or cocaine, but the substance was never tested to determine its true nature. Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio. being acquitted O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair." El Paso Times The meme claimed: FAMILY BUSINESS FEDERALLY PROSECUTED O'Rourke's family business "Charlotte's Furniture," a store "Beto," his mother and sister are involved with, was charged in 2010 with altering records to avoid IRS reporting. Investigators found they accepted cash payments, in one instance over $630,000 from an unnamed individual (that's a LOT of furniture)! Found guilty on 15 counts, the sentence was a $250,000 fine and 5 years' probation. Around the time O'Rourke announced as a senate candidate, the business was shuttered and its records became unavailable. O'Rourke passes the prosecution off as a "mistake"; it's been covered, move along, nothing to see here. The meme got the basic facts right about the federal tax case against Charlotte's, but it falsely claimed that Congressman O'Rourke was personally "involved" in the company. He was not. In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative. felony The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold. restructured provisions In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended. sentence In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction. announced According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke. records Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either. Records The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso. disclosure However, his part ownership of the Peppertree Square property (which does not appear to entail any management function in any of the businesses located there) did not accrue until 31 December 2012, more than six years after the conclusion of the I.R.S. reporting violations at Charlotte's. O'Rourke, Robert Beto. "Statement of Candidacy." Federal Election Commission. 9 July 2018. Bradner, Eric. "With Primary Ending, Cruz Takes Opening Shot at Beto O'Rourke's Name." CNN. 7 March 2018. Stanton, John. "Juarez's Biggest Booster Is an Irish-American Congressman." BuzzFeed News. 14 October 2014. Draper, Robert. "Texas, Three Ways." The New York Times. 14 November 2014. Scharrer, Gary. "O'Rourke Goes Out Talking." The El Paso Times. 8 December 1986. The El Paso Times. "Consumers Dial Up Web Site." 16 June 1999. O'Rourke, Beto. "Texas Should Lead the Way on True Criminal Justice Reform." The Houston Chronicle. 27 August 2018. Diaz, Kevin. "Police Reports Detail Beto O'Rourke's 1998 DWI Arrest." The Houston Chronicle. 31 August 2018. Cruz, Laura. "Friends, Family Say Goodbye to O'Rourke." The El Paso Times. 7 July 2001. The White House. "Fact Sheet: The STOCK Act -- Bans Members of Congress from Insider Trading." 4 April 2012. The El Paso Times. "Congressman May Have Broken Ethics Rules with Twitter Stock Purchase." 26 November 2013. Landis, David. "Jurors Decided Hill Negligent, Not Criminal." The El Paso Times. 23 December 1983. Scharrer, Gary. "O'Rourke Expresses Sorrow Over Charge." The El Paso Times. 29 October 1983. Legal Information Institute. "U.S. Code, Title 31, Subtitle IV, Chapter 53, Subchapter II, Section 5324 -- Structuring Transactions to Evade Reporting Requirement Prohibite." Cornell Law School. Accessed 31 August 2018. U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. "U.S.A. vs Charlotte's Inc. -- Information." 4 May 2010. U.S. District Court, Western District of Texas, El Paso Division. "U.S.A. vs Charlotte's Inc. -- Amended Judgment." 8 June 2010. Villa, Pablo. "Charlotte's Furniture Store to Close This Year, Owner Says." The El Paso Times. 4 August 2017. Correction [4 September 2018]: This article has been updated to more accurately describe the role of El Paso County judge.

['profit']

NEI

One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018:A spokesperson for O'Rourke's campaign described the meme as "factually incorrect in countless ways" and largely referred us to several existing news reports about the allegations. The following is our breakdown of the five sections contained in the meme.O'Rourke adopted the name "Beto" to appeal to Latino voters: The meme claimed:NOT HISPANIC"Robert O'Rourke" became "Beto" for his political campaigns and on the ballot, a tactic that gives the false impression he's Latino, misleading voters in a state with many Hispanics.In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.")O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.)O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s.A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design.After checking the archives of the El Paso Times, we found multiple references to "Beto O'Rourke" between 1986 and 2004, when O'Rourk was either a child or a businessman and had never run for political office.In March, the campaign of O'Rourke's Republican opponent, Ted Cruz, launched a radio jingle that poked fun at the name "Beto" and included the following lyrics: "I remember reading stories/Liberal Robert wanted to fit in/So he changed his name to 'Beto'/And hid it with a grin ...":FIRST LISTEN: our new 60-second statewide radio ad introducing our liberal opponent, Congressman Robert ORourke, to Texas voters.Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018The next day, O'Rourke posted a photograph of himself as a young boy, wearing a sweater with the nickname "Beto" stitched into it, establishing that, contrary to false accusation, he did not "change his name" for political reasons:pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018O'Rourke used his father's connections to avoid trial for two felonies: UNPROVENThe meme claimed:FELONY ARREST RECORDAs an adult in his mid-20s, O'Rourke was caught breaking into the University of Texas El Paso. Charged with breaking and entering and burglary, he mysteriously avoided trial. A few years later, arrested for drunk driving, he again walked with a "deal." Being the song of a powerful, politically connected County Judge apparently has benefits. O'Rourke dismisses his felony convictions as "youthful pranks" and "mistakes"; it's old news, move along, nothing to see here.O'Rourke has indeed been arrested for burglary and drunk driving, a history which he has discussed several times over the course of his political career, as his spokesperson told us: "While charges were dismissed, this is something that Beto has always publicly addressed -- during his initial run for the city council, his run for Congress, in profiles written about him, during dozens of interviews, and at town halls across the state during this campaign."In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote:Twenty-three years ago I was arrested for attempted forcible entry after jumping a fence at the University of Texas at El Paso. I spent a night in the El Paso County Jail, was able to make bail the next day, and was released. Three years later, I was arrested for drunk driving -- a far more serious mistake for which there is no excuse.According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996.O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped.In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene:State and local police reports obtained by the Chronicle and Express-News show that ORourke was driving drunk at what a witness called a high rate of speed in a 75 mph zone on Interstate 10 about a mile from the New Mexico border. He lost control and hit a truck, sending his car careening across the center median into oncoming lanes. The witness, who stopped at the scene, later told police that ORourke had tried to drive away from the scene. O'Rourke recorded a 0.136 and 0.134 on police breathalyzers, above a blood-alcohol level of 0.10, the state legal limit at the time.In the case of his DWI arrest, O'Rourke did not face prison time because he completed an alternative adjudication program. It's not clear why the attempted burglary charge was dropped in 1996 (we asked the O'Rourke campaign about this but didn't receive a response to that particular question in time for publication). However, we could find no evidence that O'Rourke's father had any role in either case, nor did the meme offer any evidence.Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest.O'Rourke violated 'insider trading' laws: The meme claimed:INSIDER TRADING VIOLATIONSAfter being sent a memo specifically prohibiting investment in Twitter's IPO [initial public offering], O'Rourke made a tidy one-day profit on it. When uncovered by a government watchdog, he quickly turned himself in. This violation of the STOCK Act (Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge) is apparently a habit, as there are several other instances of this behavior; he characterizes them as mistakes.Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress.But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him:U.S. Rep. Beto ORourke alerted the House Ethics Committee that he might have violated a new law restricting members of Congress from engaging in certain stock transactions.It is the first case to come before the committee involving a 2012 law that prohibits members of Congress from participating in initial public offerings, or IPOs, other than what is available to members of the public generally, said Melanie Sloan, executive director of the Committee for Ethics and Responsibility in Washington, a watchdog group.ORourke, a Democrat whose district covers a portion of western Texas, reported the possible violation after Legistorm, an online news site that tracks congressional issues, informed him that his Nov. 15 disclosure saying he participated in the Twitter IPO earlier in the month might indicate a violation of a 2012 law called the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act, or STOCK Act.The freshman congressman also reported that, through his stockbroker, he participated in six other initial public offerings this year. In an interview, ORourke said he didnt see a Nov. 5 memo from the House Ethics Committee warning members of Congress about participating in IPOs.On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares:Upon receiving the letter from the Committee today I instructed my broker to sell all remaining shares, which he did. I then sent a check for the full amount of the profit from all IPO trades this year to the U.S. Treasury by overnight mail. Copies of the trades and the check have been sent to the Ethics Committee.I apologize to the House of Representatives and to the people I represent for not exercising due diligence. I will be much more thorough in the future concerning financial transactions and do my best to ensure that I am in full compliance with all rules covering members of Congress.Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day.Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13."A condom full of "white powder" was found in O'Rourke's father's car: trueThe meme claimed:FATHER'S DRUG SCANDALO'Rourke's father, while county judge, had a 2-way radio installed in his Jeep. Installers discovered a condom packed with a "white powder" concealed in his vehicle and called police. Much to the dismay of investigating officers, the Captain on duty, a friend and political ally of O'Rourke, flushed the evidence down the toilet and dropped the charges. The Captain was subsequently suspended and tried for tampering with evidence.This section of the meme relates to incidents which took place in 1983, when Beto O'Rourke was 10 years old, and which had absolutely nothing to do with him.Nevertheless, it's true that in February 1983, El Paso County Sheriff's Captain Willie Hill told two police officers to get rid of a condom full of white powder which they had found in Pat O'Rourke's car while they were installing a radio in it. The officers suspected the powder to be heroin or cocaine, but the substance was never tested to determine its true nature.Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio.O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair."O'Rourke was involved in a family business that was prosecuted for tax violations: The meme claimed:FAMILY BUSINESS FEDERALLY PROSECUTEDO'Rourke's family business "Charlotte's Furniture," a store "Beto," his mother and sister are involved with, was charged in 2010 with altering records to avoid IRS reporting. Investigators found they accepted cash payments, in one instance over $630,000 from an unnamed individual (that's a LOT of furniture)! Found guilty on 15 counts, the sentence was a $250,000 fine and 5 years' probation. Around the time O'Rourke announced as a senate candidate, the business was shuttered and its records became unavailable. O'Rourke passes the prosecution off as a "mistake"; it's been covered, move along, nothing to see here.The meme got the basic facts right about the federal tax case against Charlotte's, but it falsely claimed that Congressman O'Rourke was personally "involved" in the company. He was not.In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative.The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold.In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended.In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction.According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke.Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either.The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso.However, his part ownership of the Peppertree Square property (which does not appear to entail any management function in any of the businesses located there) did not accrue until 31 December 2012, more than six years after the conclusion of the I.R.S. reporting violations at Charlotte's.One such meme, entitled "'Beto' Reality Check," was shared widely on Facebook in August 2018:In fact, O'Rourke was known as "Beto" long before he entered political life, although his birth name is Robert and he appears to use both first names interchangeably. (For example, his July 2018 Federal Election Commission "Statement of Candidacy" lists his name as "Robert Beto O'Rourke.")O'Rourke told CNN that his parents referred to him as Beto "from day one," and that it "just stuck." Others have noted that the name is likely derived from a pronunciation of the Spanish "Roberto," and O'Rourke himself described it as "a nickname for Robert in El Paso." (According to the U.S. Census Bureau, around 78 percent of El Paso county residents listed themselves as being of Mexican heritage in 2016.)O'Rourke's family is of Irish heritage. According to the New York Times, his family "came over from Ireland four generations ago to work on the railroad." His father Pat O'Rourke was a prominent El Paso County official during the 1980s.A 1986 article about Pat O'Rourke in the El Paso Times referred to his then 14-year-old son as "Beto O'Rourke." In 1999, six years before O'Rourke ran for El Paso city council, the same newspaper referred to "web site designer Beto O'Rourke" in a short article about his I.T. business Stanton Street Design.Help #KeepTexasRed: https://t.co/PVsiCtbbyL #CruzCrew #TXSen pic.twitter.com/OxK61gZ0ek Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) March 7, 2018pic.twitter.com/1IO1dgmCkv Beto O'Rourke (@BetoORourke) March 7, 2018In a 27 August 2018 op-ed for the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News, O'Rourke himself wrote:According to El Paso county jail records, O'Rourke was arrested for attempted burglary on 19 May 1995, when he was 22 years old. He was released from custody the same day. Court records show that the prosecutor dropped the charge in February 1996.O'Rourke was also arrested for driving while intoxicated on 27 September 1998, the day after his 26th birthday. He completed a "misdemeanor diversion program" (namely "DWI school") in October 1999, and the charge was dropped.In August 2018, the Houston Chronicle and San Antonio Express-News cited police reports, including a witness account, which suggested that the incident leading to O'Rourke's DWI arrest was relatively serious and involved a collision with another vehicle and a possible attempt by O'Rourke to leave the scene:Congressman O'Rourke's father Pat was the El Paso County judge until 1986 -- a kind of chief executive of the county's governing body, the Commissioners Court -- so he had not held office for nine years by the time of his son's attempted burglary arrest.Despite the meme's claim, O'Rourke has never been charged with, or convicted of, violating any laws related to insider trading, including the STOCK Act, which bars members of the U.S. Congress from benefiting from financial transactions made on the basis of information they received in their capacity as members of Congress.But this section of the meme does contain elements of truth in that -- after the matter was brought to light by a third party -- O'Rourke reported his potential violation of rules to the House Ethics Committee (for stock transactions he maintained were executed by his broker without his knowledge), and the matter was resolved without any charges being brought against him:On 27 November 2013, O'Rourke wrote on Facebook that the ethics committee had informed him they would consider the issue resolved once he sold off any remaining shares that he bought during any IPOs, and sent the U.S. Treasury a check equal to the amount he earned in profits from those IPO-related shares:Records filed with the Clerk of the House of Representatives show that O'Rourke bought between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of shares in Twitter on 7 November 2013 (the first day the company was traded on the stock market), before selling off between $1,000 and $15,000 in shares later that day.Records also indicate that on 27 November 2013, O'Rourke again sold off between $1,000 and $15,000 worth of Twitter shares "pursuant to the recommendations made by House Ethics Committee in a letter from 11/27/13."Hill was temporarily suspended but was reinstated after being acquitted on a misdemeanor charge of evidence tampering. (The prosecutor had earlier dropped a charge of misconduct against him.) Hill testified that he made a snap decision about the discovery of the powder, which he strongly suspected had been planted there to embarrass or undermine either O'Rourke or one of the officers installing the radio.O'Rourke and Hill were friends, as O'Rourke (then county judge) told the El Paso Times: "Because he's a good man, it would be an injustice if Willie were to suffer grievous consequences from this whole episode. You have an honest and honorable man implicated by pure fluke. And that's just damn right not fair."In 2010, Charlotte's Inc., an El Paso furniture store company started by O'Rourke's grandmother in 1951, was convicted of "structuring transactions to evade reporting requirements, a tax-related felony. The company was charged as a corporate entity, but the Congressman's mother, Melissa O'Rourke, acted as its authorized representative.The company pled guilty to accusations that it had restructured transactions in order to present relatively large cash payments as having been made in installments of less than $10,000. Anti-money laundering provisions of U.S. law require that a business reveal the identity of any individual who makes a cash payment above that threshold.In total, Charlotte's and its employees illegally restructured $630,000 in payments, all from one customer, in this way between May 2005 and October 2006. The identity of that customer is not known. U.S. District Court judge Kathleen Cardone gave a sentence of five years' probation and a $500,000 fine, with $250,000 of that suspended.In 2017, Melissa O'Rourke announced that she intended to close down the business but denied the decision was connected to her son's U.S. Senate campaign or the 2010 conviction.According to Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts records for 2017, Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with Charlotte's Inc., whose directors were Melissa O'Rourke and the Congressman's sister Charlotte O'Rourke.Records for 2005 and 2006 (when the I.R.S. reporting violations took place) as well as 2010 (when the conviction happened) show that Congressman O'Rourke had no formal role with the company at those times, either.The Congressman is part owner of the property where Charlotte's was located. According to O'Rourke's 2013 congressional financial disclosure, his mother gifted him an ownership stake worth between $1 million and $5 million in Peppertree Square, a shopping center on North Mesa St. in El Paso.

Kraft Macaroni & Cheese Made with GMO Wheat?

['Rumor: Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products carry a warning label due to their use of GMO wheat.']

Claim: Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products carry a warning label due to their use of GMO wheat. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] On Facebook, there is a claim that Kraft Mac and cheese imported from the UK had to have a warning label stating that the product may adversely effect activity and attention in children and that it is made from genetically modified wheat. However the claim is unclear as to whether the issue is due to the modified wheat. Origins: In May 2013, an image of an ingredients labels from a package of Kraft brand Mac & Cheese imported to the UK from the U.S. was circulated widely via social media: This image, originally posted to Facebook (without the added text) by Flo Wrightson Cross, who bought the pictured package at a Tesco store in Ponders End, was of particular interest because the "Allergen Information" section of the ingredients label cautioned that "This product may have adverse effect on activity and attention in children" and included a GMO (genetically-modified organism) declaration stating "Made from genetically modified wheat" (may contain GMO)." Flo Wrightson Cross That wording was touted as seemingly confirming the convictions of critics of GMO foods, demonstrating that Kraft uses "illegal GMO wheat" (genetically modified wheat is not currently authorized for planting or commercial sale in any country) and that the government (in the UK, at least, if not yet in the U.S.) has acknowledged the dangers of GMO foods and requires them to be labeled in a way indicating their potential harm to children. However, the legitimacy of the "GMO Declaration" section of the pictured label was highly suspect, if not outright nonsensical. Since GMO wheat is neither legal to grow or sell anywhere, how could Kraft have obtained a supply of that substance to use in manufacturing their Mac & Cheese? And why would Kraft furtively create an illegal product and then openly label it in a way that proclaimed it was illegal? Suspicions about the legitimacy of the label were confirmed by Kraft Foods, who told us that the label did not originate with them and was inaccurate, as neither their Mac & Cheese nor any other Kraft food product contained GMO wheat: Genetically engineered wheat is not available for commercial use. We do not use GE wheat in Mac & Cheese or any other Kraft product. So anyone who is saying or implying there is GE wheat in Kraft Mac & Cheese or any other Kraft product is wrong. We don't export Mac & Cheese to the UK and have no authorized distributor there. The company that has applied this sticker is not authorized by Kraft to sell our products. They are not a customer of Kraft. They are getting the product from someone else and reselling our product in the UK. We're continuing to investigate, but because we are not dealing with authorized distributors of our products, we may not get to the bottom of this issue anytime soon. Additionally, even if the label shown here were genuine, the commonly suggested interpretation of it would still be inaccurate. European Union regulations require foodstuffs containing GMOs to be clearly labeled as "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [ingredients]," but those regulations do not require such products to be tagged with a warning that they "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." That wording is specific to a different European Union regulation implemented in 2010, one which requires foods containing certain artificial colorings to bear such a warning due to a possible connection between the consumption of those substances and ADHD symptoms in children. regulations regulation colorings The appearance of the statement "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children" on food packaging, therefore,does not reference the putative presence any GMO substances in that product, but rather its inclusion of synthetic food dyes. Food products sold in the U.S. are not required to bear similar labels, as U.S. federal regulatory agencies maintain there is currently insufficient evidence that GMO foods or synthetic dyes pose any health risks to consumers. Although Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products have included the synthetic dyes E102 and E110 (known in the U.S. as Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6), used to impart a bright orange coloring to food, in October 2013 the company announced they would removing those dyes from some of their macaroni and cheese varieties: E102 E110 announced Kraft says it plans to remove artificial dyes from three macaroni and cheese varieties that come in kid-friendly shapes, a move that comes as people increasingly reach for foods they feel are natural. The change doesn't affect Kraft's plain elbow-shaped macaroni and cheese with "original flavor." Kraft's new recipes, which begin shipping early [in 2014], will be for its macaroni and cheese varieties that come in the SpongeBob Squarepants, Halloween and winter shapes. Two new shapes will also be added. Triona Schmelter, Kraft Food Group Inc.'s vice president of marketing for meals, said the company was looking to improve the nutritional profiles of the three macaroni and cheese varieties more broadly. The new recipes will also add whole grains and reduce the amount of sodium and saturated fat, she said. She declined to specify whether Kraft would eventually make similar changes to its other macaroni and cheese lines. But she noted the company already offers options that only use natural colors, such as several of its "Homestyle" varieties. "We'll continue to make improvement where we can," Schmelter said, noting that the company tries to cater to evolving customer preferences. Last updated: 18 March 2015

['interest']

False

This image, originally posted to Facebook (without the added text) by Flo Wrightson Cross, who bought the pictured package at a Tesco store in Ponders End, was of particular interest because the "Allergen Information" section of the ingredients label cautioned that "This product may have adverse effect on activity and attention in children" and included a GMO (genetically-modified organism) declaration stating "Made from genetically modified wheat" (may contain GMO)." Additionally, even if the label shown here were genuine, the commonly suggested interpretation of it would still be inaccurate. European Union regulations require foodstuffs containing GMOs to be clearly labeled as "genetically modified" or "produced from genetically modified [ingredients]," but those regulations do not require such products to be tagged with a warning that they "may have an adverse effect on activity and attention in children." That wording is specific to a different European Union regulation implemented in 2010, one which requires foods containing certain artificial colorings to bear such a warning due to a possible connection between the consumption of those substances and ADHD symptoms in children.Although Kraft Macaroni & Cheese products have included the synthetic dyes E102 and E110 (known in the U.S. as Yellow No. 5 and Yellow No. 6), used to impart a bright orange coloring to food, in October 2013 the company announced they would removing those dyes from some of their macaroni and cheese varieties:

Is Netflix Giving Away Free 1-Year Subscriptions Due to COVID-19?

['Phishing scams have proliferated on the internet since the start of the pandemic.']

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. Since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States in March 2020, a scam has been circulating on the internet, falsely informing viewers that streaming giant Netflix was offering a free one-year subscription due to the pandemic. Here's an example of the scam we found circulating on Twitter, with the user's name cropped out for privacy reasons: The text of the scam read, "Due to the Coronavirus pandemic worldwide, Netflix is giving some free pass for their platform during the period of isolation. Run on the site cause it will end quick!" The post also included a link, which we cropped out because it is likely a phishing site. Netflix is making no such offer, and in fact, as of October 2020, it no longer even offered temporary free trials for potential subscribers. In other Netflix-related scams, members of the public reported receiving emails and text messages from scammers posing as Netflix representatives, telling them they need to update their accounts. The company stated it wouldn't seek personal information, like banking or credit card numbers, in texts or emails.

['credit']

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. Since the start of the COVID-19 coronavirus in the United States in March 2020, a scam has been circulating on the internet falsely informing viewers that streaming giant Netflix was offering a free one-year subscription due to the pandemic.The text of the scam read, "Due to the CoronaVirus pandemic worldwide, Netflix is giving some free pass for their platform during the period of isolation. Run on the site cause it will end quick!" The post also included a link, which we cropped out because it is likely a phishing site.Netflix is making no such offer, and in fact as of October 2020, it no longer even offered temporary free trials for potential subscribers.In other Netflix-related scams, members of the public reported receiving emails and text messages from scammers posing as Netflix representatives, telling them they need to update their accounts. The company stated it wouldn't seek personal information, like banking or credit card numbers, in texts or emails.

Clinton Paid 'Hard Drive Destruction' Company

["Hillary Clinton's campaign made payments to data destruction companies, but no evidence links those services to her controversial use of a private e-mail server."]

On May 3, 2016, the website Washington Free Beacon published an article provocatively titled "Clinton Campaign Made Payments to Hard Drive and Document Destruction Company" (subtitled "Payments could have purchased destruction of 14 hard drives"). The article reported that the Hillary Clinton campaign made payments totaling $187 to a document destruction company, American Document Destruction, Inc., in February and March of 2016. It implied (without directly stating) that the Clinton campaign might have spent the funds on destroying disk drives involved in the controversy surrounding Clinton's use of private, home-based servers and accounts for official business conducted while she served as U.S. Secretary of State. Campaign finance records show that the Hillary Clinton campaign made multiple payments to a company specializing in hard drive and document destruction. The payments, recorded in February and March of 2016, went to the Nevada-based American Document Destruction, Inc., which claims expertise in destroying hard drives and other materials. "Our hard drive destruction procedures take place either at your site or at our secure facility in Sparks, NV," the company's website states. "This decision is yours to make based on cost and convenience. In either situation, the hard drive will be destroyed by shredding." Nowhere did the Washington Free Beacon article offer any evidence that the services provided by American Document Destruction, Inc. to the Clinton campaign involved the destruction of hard drives or data from the private server she used while serving as Secretary of State. In fact, the article didn't even provide any evidence that the services involved the destruction of hard drives at all (rather than paper documents). It simply noted that the Clinton campaign paid American Document Destruction, Inc. an amount that would have covered the costs of destroying 14 hard drives or shredding 37.4 cubic feet of paper (or, presumably, some combination of the two). A follow-up article from another news outlet reported that Clinton's campaign also paid $50 to Shredco, a company that provides safe disposal of paper documents. It's extremely unlikely that either of these companies were involved in destroying material related to Clinton's use of a private email server for several reasons. First, the expenditures were openly reported to the Federal Election Commission, an unlikely move for a campaign furtively involved in destroying evidence related to a federal investigation. Second, anyone seeking to destroy sensitive information related to a high-level federal investigation probably wouldn't trust the task to businesses that charged only a few hundred dollars for the service, rather than to much more expensive (and presumably more private and secure) firms. Moreover, even though Bernie Sanders' campaign wasn't embroiled in an email controversy, his campaign paid nearly three times as much as Clinton's did for similar services. Former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz also contracted for shredding services in the same timeframe. Paying for data destruction services is hardly suspect for an organization that processes thousands of donations each month, as the Hillary Clinton campaign does. Personal information from donors (such as credit card numbers) would, if printed or stored on hard drives, need to be securely destroyed to protect those donors. Given Bernie Sanders' repeated insistence that the average donation made to his campaign is $27, it seems reasonable that his organization would also be contracting for similar services and paying for a higher volume of shreddable transactions than the Clinton campaign.

['funds']

NEI

The article implied (without directly stating) that the Clinton campaign might have spent the funds on destroying disk drives involved in the controversy surrounding Clinton's use of private, home-based servers and accounts for official business she conducted while serving as U.S. secretary of state:A follow-up article from another news outletreported that Clinton's campaign also paid $50 to Shredco, a company that provides safe disposal of paper documents.Moreover, even though Bernie Sanders' campaign wasn't embroiled in an e-mail controversy, his campaign paid nearly three times as much as Clinton's did for similar services:Former Republican presidential candidate Ted Cruz also contracted for shredding services in the same timeframe:

More Texans have new jobs today than the entire population of Fort Worth.

[]

Republican Gov. Rick Perry frequently talks up the Texas economy, focusing in recent TV ads on the state's job gains since he took office almost 10 years ago. Texas added more than 850,000 new jobs, Perry says in a New Jobs spot that debuted online Oct. 13. More Texans have new jobs today than the entire population of Fort Worth. For an article published Sept. 23, we put the 850,000 number to the Truth-O-Meter, rating itTrue. On Oct. 11, Katy Bacon, spokeswoman for Democratic gubernatorial nominee Bill White, wrote us an e-mail suggesting that the jobs picture might have changed since our first pass, making the claim inaccurate. We put our pencils to her point, though in this article we'll be rating whether Perry's comparison of job gains to Fort Worth's population holds water. In an Oct. 19 news release about the New Jobs ad, the Perry campaign points to U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics data on state employment to show the change in the number of nonfarm jobs in Texas between January 2001, shortly after Perry became governor, and June 2010. During that time, the state experienced a net gain of 853,400 jobs. Of course, Texas was also growing during that time; according to projections from the Texas State Data Center, the population increased by about 4 million people between 2001 and 2010. Texas, the second-largest state, is among the 20 states that had net job gains during the 9.5-year span from January 2001 to June 2010. Texas ranked No. 1, followed by Arizona (132,700 jobs) and Utah (113,200 jobs). Yet as White's camp nudged June's numbers are no longer the most recent. By July 2010, Texas' net job gain had dropped to 848,000. In August, it fell even further, to 818,500, although that month's job numbers were preliminary until Friday, after Perry's ad was released. The August information makes Perry's figure off by 31,500 jobs. Bottom line? Perry's statement that Texas added more than 850,000 jobs is correct when considering a particular time period (that he doesn't mention in the ad): between January 2001 and June 2010. By August, that statement was no longer accurate, but that information wasn't final until after Perry's ad came out. Next, how do the job gains compare with the population of Cowtown, the state's fifth-largest city? For its head count, the governor's team uses a population estimate from the City of Fort Worth's website: 736,200 people as of Jan. 1, 2010. The U.S. Census Bureau's most recent estimate for July 1, 2009 is 727,577. We asked Ed Friedman, a director at Moody's Analytics who covers the Texas economy, about the validity of Perry's comparison of statewide job gains over time with Fort Worth's population in 2010. He called the comparison a reasonable way for Perry to give you an idea of the size of the gain. Either way, the Fort Worth comparison stands up because no matter which final month is chosen, the number of Texas jobs has gone up more than the population of Fort Worth. We rate Perry's statement as True.

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

True

For an article published Sept. 23, we put the 850,000 number to the Truth-O-Meter, rating itTrue.

Did Trump Kill 100,000 Boeing Jobs By Pulling Out of the Iran Nuclear Deal?

["A viral meme circulating on Facebook jumps to conclusions about the effects of the president's backing out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action."]

On 8 March 2018, the liberal Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a meme reporting that 100,000 jobs at aerospace and airplane manufacturing giant Boeing would be lost because President Donald Trump had reneged on the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, better known as the Iran nuclear deal. The claim that 100,000 American manufacturing jobs would be lost likely came from a Marketwatch report, which states that Boeing announced the largest of its deals with Iranian airlines in December 2016: 80 jets for Iran Air, including 50 of the 737 MAX 8 model. In April 2017, Iran Aseman Airlines signed an agreement to purchase 30 Boeing 737 MAX planes, with an option to buy 30 more. Boeing at the time said the Iran Air deal would support 100,000 U.S. jobs. Dan Curran, a spokesman for Boeing, told us in a statement that the company expected the effect on jobs from the policy reversal to be "minimal," if there was any at all. "The production plan that we have put in place was not and is not dependent on the Iranian orders. Boeing has a robust sales backlog of more than 5,800 airplanes, which represents about seven years of production. Iranian airlines were not included in our order backlog. And there has been no change to our backlog or production rates as a result of the Administration's announcement." At an event in Washington, D.C., Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said the company had planned for the possibility that the U.S. could back out of the agreement by not committing production slots for planes slated for Iran. It's too early to know how the blowback from the policy reversal will impact Boeing and the economy as a whole, as financial publication TheStreet.com points out. Bernstein's analysts said there may be as much of a chance for Boeing to profit from the fallout as not. "For defense contractors with significant Middle Eastern exposure, heightened regional tensions could drive increased demand for missile defense, in particular, but potentially also aircraft, ships, missiles, and vehicles," Harned and company wrote. Various analysts, including Seaport's Sullivan and Bernstein's Harned, Laughlin, and Sheey, were not overly concerned with Boeing falling behind on that production rate. The company has said it did not model the Iranian order into its production rate forecast for the 777, and the order was not part of its firm backlog of those jets as of April, which totaled 94. Any loss to 737 deliveries due to the Iranian deal would also be immaterial, given the company had a backlog of 4,622 of those jets as of April. French aircraft dealer Airbus will also lose roughly $20 billion in business as a result of Trump's decision, because although the company is based in Europe, parts used to manufacture the planes are made in the United States. Among other large companies that stand to lose as a result of the decision are General Electric, Volkswagen, and Total, as CNN Money reports. Total (TOT), the French oil and gas company, signed a $2 billion agreement to help develop Iran's giant South Pars gas field, together with the Chinese state oil company CNPC. Now the company is worried the agreement could collapse in the face of new sanctions. General Electric (GE) received millions of dollars in orders from Iran in 2017, according to company filings, for its oil and gas business. This includes orders for machine parts and equipment used in gas plants. In 2017, Germany's Volkswagen (VLKAF) announced that it would sell cars in Iran for the first time in 17 years.

['profit']

NEI

The claim that 100,000 American manufacturing jobs would be lost likely came from a Marketwatch report, which states:At an event in Washington, D.C., Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg said the company had planned for the possibility that the U.S. could back out of the agreement by not committing production slots for planes slated for Iran.French aircraft dealer Airbus will also lose roughly $20 billion in business as a result of Trump's decision, because although the company is based in Europe, parts used to manufacture the planes are made in the United States. Among other large companies that stand to lose as a result of the decision are General Electric, Volkswagen, and Total, as CNN Money reports:

Comparison between Hiroshima and Detroit

['Circulating images purport to compare the effects of urban decay in Detroit with the destruction of Hiroshima, Japan by an atomic bomb during World War II.']

The photo montage displayed above is one of dozens circulating online since 2009, purporting to demonstrate that 50-plus years of rule by the Democratic Party wrought a level of destruction on Detroit comparable to that caused by the dropping of the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, Japan in 1945. Some versions have sought to make the case verbally, as well. For example:What has caused more long term destruction - the A-bomb, or Government welfare programs created to buy the votes of those who want someone to take care of them? Japan does not have a welfare system. Work for it or do without. These are possibly the 5 best sentences youll ever read and all applicable to this experiment: 1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity. 2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. 3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. 4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it! 5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation. The comparison of 2010 Detroit to 1945 Hiroshima is grotesquely forced, however, as is the implication that Democratic policies are wholly to blame for the Detroit's decline since World War II. We'll start our analysis with the images, some of which are inaccurately labeled. Beginning with the upper left-hand photo, it is, in fact, an aerial view of the hypocenter (ground zero) of the atomic bomb explosion over Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, taken a few months after the fact. Here's a larger view of the image: hypocenter Working clockwise, the next image in the set supposedly depicts modern-day Hiroshima except that it doesn't. It's actually a snapshot taken from the Landmark Tower Sky Garden in Yokohama, Japan much like this one from Flickr: Flickr That having been pointed out, it's true that Hiroshima was rebuilt from its ashes and is now a beautiful and modern city. Nor is it too terribly hard to find an actual photo of it. rebuilt photo The photo at bottom-right though taken in 2013, not 2010 does show a dilapidated building (of which there are plenty) on the east side of Detroit. It's the former Packard Automotive Plant, which closed in the late 1950s: plenty closed However, the thing to note about the use of this image to portray Detroit as a locus of Hiroshima-like devastation is that all we actually see is one long-abandoned, crumbling building. It doesn't make the case. Lastly, we're shown a photo supposedly depicting Detroit in its mid-1940s heyday except that it was taken in the mid-1930s. It's an aerial view of Navin Field (later Tiger Stadium): Navin Field Granted, for the purposes of argument it doesn't really matter whether the above photo was taken in the '30s or '40s the point remains that Detroit once had a teeming population, abundant jobs, and a booming economy. In 1950 it was the fourth-largest city in the United States, but no longer. The question is, who was responsible? There's no simple explanation (and therefore no single scapegoat at whom to point fingers) for Detroit's long, slow descent to bankruptcy. Scott Martelle, author of Detroit: A Biography, offered this capsule summary in an op-ed column published in 2011: column The collapse of Detroit has roots in intentional de-industrialization by the Big Three automakers, which in the 1950s began aggressively spider-webbing operations across the nation to produce cars closer to regional markets, and to reduce labor costs by investing in less labor-friendly places than union-heavy Detroit. Their flight was augmented by government policies that, in the 1970s and 1980s particularly, forced municipalities and states to compete with each other for jobs by offering corporate tax breaks and other inducements to keep or draw business investments, a bit of whipsawing that helped companies profit at the expense of communities. Another summary of Detroit's decline cited issues such as the city's dependence on a single industry (i.e., automobiles), decades of racial tensions, shortcomings of leadership (stretching back to the 1930s), and the lack of an efficient transit system. decline Did Democrats and Democratic policies play some role in the fall of Detroit? Surely they did. Every Detroit mayor since 1962 has been a Democrat, after all. But Republicans held the seat for the 12 years prior to that, from 1950 through 1961. The Packard plant whose hollowed-out remains were displayed above closed its doors during that time. Whatever blame is to be allotted to politicians must be shared by both Democrats and Republicans on the national level, as well. Detroit's decline since World War II took place during periods when both parties held the presidency and/or controlled Congress. Finally, the specific suggestion that Detroit's downfall was an unintended consequence of the spread of social welfare programs while Hiroshima's dramatic recovery is at least partially attributable to the lack of same in Japan is based on misinformation. Japan has maintained strong public health care and social welfare programs in one form or another since the 1920s. Yet Hiroshima was rebuilt and flourished just the same. maintained Drury, Flora."A City Rebuilt from the Ashes." Daily Mail Online.5 August 2015. Martelle, Scott."The Collapse of Detroit." Los Angeles Times.27 March 2011. "Anatomy of Detroit's Decline." New York Times.8 December 2013. "Zombieland: The Abandoned Buildings of Detroit." Beaumont Enterprise.18 July 2013.

['profit']

False

Beginning with the upper left-hand photo, it is, in fact, an aerial view of the hypocenter (ground zero) of the atomic bomb explosion over Hiroshima on 6 August 1945, taken a few months after the fact. Here's a larger view of the image:Working clockwise, the next image in the set supposedly depicts modern-day Hiroshima except that it doesn't. It's actually a snapshot taken from the Landmark Tower Sky Garden in Yokohama, Japan much like this one from Flickr:That having been pointed out, it's true that Hiroshima was rebuilt from its ashes and is now a beautiful and modern city. Nor is it too terribly hard to find an actual photo of it.The photo at bottom-right though taken in 2013, not 2010 does show a dilapidated building (of which there are plenty) on the east side of Detroit. It's the former Packard Automotive Plant, which closed in the late 1950s:Lastly, we're shown a photo supposedly depicting Detroit in its mid-1940s heyday except that it was taken in the mid-1930s. It's an aerial view of Navin Field (later Tiger Stadium):There's no simple explanation (and therefore no single scapegoat at whom to point fingers) for Detroit's long, slow descent to bankruptcy. Scott Martelle, author of Detroit: A Biography, offered this capsule summary in an op-ed column published in 2011:Another summary of Detroit's decline cited issues such as the city's dependence on a single industry (i.e., automobiles), decades of racial tensions, shortcomings of leadership (stretching back to the 1930s), and the lack of an efficient transit system.Finally, the specific suggestion that Detroit's downfall was an unintended consequence of the spread of social welfare programs while Hiroshima's dramatic recovery is at least partially attributable to the lack of same in Japan is based on misinformation. Japan has maintained strong public health care and social welfare programs in one form or another since the 1920s. Yet Hiroshima was rebuilt and flourished just the same.

Cicero's thoughts on fiscal management by the government

['This quotation from Roman statesman Cicero about balancing the budget comes from a 1965 novel, not from history.']

As we've noted many times in these pages, one common way in which people attempt to demonstrate the aptness of a particular social or political viewpoint is to put its expression into the mouth of a revered historical figure. [Collected via e-mail, April 2008] This quote is going around the internet. I would like to know if it really came from Cicero as claimed. "The budget should be balanced, the Treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. People must again learn to work, instead of living on public assistance." Cicero, 55 BC Surely if one of great minds of our civilization, someone who lived hundreds (or even thousands) of years ago, said the very same thing we're thinking today, then surely that's proof we've hit upon some eternal truth that should be sagaciously heeded. In short, attributing apocryphal quotations to everyone from Confucius to Abraham Lincoln is an attempt to capitalize on the maxim that "great minds think alike." One prime representative of this phenomenon is the passage reproduced above, which warns about the perils of governments' overspending their budgets and lavishing too much money on foreign aid and welfare programs. For the last half century it has been attributed to Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero and widely quoted by politicians and pundits seeking to bolster their arguments in favor of fiscal conservatism. For example, Louisiana representative Otto Passman, who for thirty years "pursued a relentless battle against spending for foreign aid" in the U.S. Congress, read these words into the Congressional Record on April 25, 1968: read these words into the Congressional Record Mr. Speaker, the record shows that in all ages where republican forms of government have been lost, it has been through the pretense of a share-the-wealth program, a blind faith in public officials, and apathy on the part of those who could act but did not. To mention only one of many, many examples from past history, may I quote from a statement made by Cicero over 2,000 years ago: The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, and the assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt, the mobs should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence. History reveals that public officials heeded not the warning therefore, the government collapsed. On March 29, 1971 the Chicago Tribune published a letter from a reader who invoked the same words to make a similar point: Someone said years ago: "The more things change, the more they are the same." Today's problems are not new. The Roman Empire faced bankruptcy 2,000 years ago, as more and more power was concentrated in central government and government spending grew. Cicero spoke out against the trend. This great Roman senator said: "The budget should be balanced, the treasury should be refilled, public debt should be reduced, the arrogance of officialdom should be tempered and controlled, assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt. The mobs should be forced to work and not depend on government for subsistence." Romans ignored Cicero; Rome fell. History is great if we learn from it. It is not too late for the United States to heed those words out of the past. Those words were never uttered by Cicero, however; and the reason no one ever quoted them as such until about fifty years ago is because they weren't written until 1965. They sprang from the pen of Taylor Caldwell, a fiction writer best known for historical novels such as Captains and the Kings, her 1972 best-selling chronicle of the rise to wealth and power of an Irish immigrant named Joseph Francis Xavier Armagh (which was also made into a popular television mini-series in 1976). popular television mini-series Caldwell penned several novels based on real-life religious and historical figures, including Genghis Khan (The Earth Is the Lord's), Cardinal Richelieu (The Arm and the Darkness), Saint Luke (Dear and Glorious Physician), Saint Paul (Great Lion of God), Aspasia (Glory and the Lightning), and Judas Iscariot (I, Judas). Her 1965 effort A Pillar of Iron was a historical novel about the life of Cicero, the great Roman statesman who "is a pillar of iron as he publicly maintains his search for honor and justice under law in the face of plots against his life and his country." Although A Pillar of Iron often drew directly from the recorded speeches and letters of Cicero for its dialogue, it was nonetheless a work of fiction, and the now famous statement from Cicero about "balancing the budget" was an invention of Caldwell's and not a reproduction of Cicero's own words. In fact, the novel doesn't even present these words as something spoken by Cicero, but rather as a summation of Cicero's political philosophy presented as a preface to an imagined conversation between Cicero and Gaius Antonius Hybrida: Reared in republican virtues, Cicero found himself frequently confounded by Antonius. Antonius heartily agreed with him that the budget should be balanced, that the Treasury should be refilled, that public debt should be reduced, that the arrogance of the generals should be tempered and controlled, that assistance to foreign lands should be curtailed lest Rome become bankrupt, that the mobs should be forced to work and not depend on the government for subsistence, and that prudence and frugality should be put into practice as soon as possible. But when Cicero produced facts and figures how all these things must and should be accomplished, by austerity and discipline and commonsense, Antonius became troubled. "But this or that would bring hardship on this or that class," Antonius said. "The people are accustomed to lavish displays in the circuses and the theaters, and the lotteries, and free grain and beans and beef when they are destitute, and shelter when they are homeless and a part of the city is rebuilt. Is not the welfare of our people paramount?" "There will be no welfare of the people if we become bankrupt," said Cicero, grimly. "We can become solvent again, and strong, only by self-denial and by spending as little as possible until the public debt is paid and the Treasury refilled." "But one cannot if one has a heart at all deprive the people of what they have received for many decades from government, and which they expect. It will create the most terrible hardships." "Better that all of us tighten our girdles than Rome fall," said Cicero. As Jess Stearn observed in In Search of Taylor Caldwell, this imagined historical conversation was reflective of Caldwell's own political outlook much more than Cicero's: "She was a conservative politically, believing the spoils belonged to those who toiled for them. There were not free lunches. She abhorred the welfare philosophy that gave handouts to free-loaders, decrying rewards for indolence and incompetence." Or, as John Blundell aptly quipped in Ladies for Liberty, "Taylor Caldwell gives us fiscal policy, civil service reform, cuts in aid to less developed countries, and welfare reform all in one sentence." The reproductions of Caldwell's words as a historical quote from Cicero have altered the original a fair bit over the years: the admonition that "prudence and frugality should be put into practice as soon as possible" was quickly dropped from the end of the sentence; "people" have replaced "mobs" as the ones who should be "forced to work and not depend on the government for subsistence"; the proclamation that the "arrogance of the generals should be tempered and controlled" now refers to generic "officialdom" rather than military figures; and the warning that this advice need be followed "lest Rome become bankrupt" has mutated into the more ominous-sounding "lest Rome fall." Blundell, John. Ladies for Liberty: Women Who Made a Difference in American History. New York: Algora Publishing, 2013. 0-875-86865-7 (p. 145). Caldwell, Taylor. A Pillar of Iron. Lake Oswego, OR: eNet Press Inc., 2013. ASIN B00CEINOCW. Collins, John H. "False Quotations." Chicago Tribune. 20 April 1971. Connolly, Jerry. "Warning from the Past." Chicago Tribune. 29 March 1971 (p. 14). Lueck, Thomas J. "Otto Passman, 88, Louisiana Congressman Who Fought Spending." The New York Times. 14 August 1988. Stearn, Jess. In Search of Taylor Caldwell. New York: Stein & Day, 1981. 0-812-82791-0. Tench, Helen. "Cicero's Rome Quarried for a Scholarly Novel." Ottawa Citizen. 14 August 1965 (p. 24). Congressional Record [House]. "History's Warning." 25 April 1968 (p. 10635).

['debt']

False

One prime representative of this phenomenon is the passage reproduced above, which warns about the perils of governments' overspending their budgets and lavishing too much money on foreign aid and welfare programs. For the last half century it has been attributed to Roman philosopher and statesman Marcus Tullius Cicero and widely quoted by politicians and pundits seeking to bolster their arguments in favor of fiscal conservatism. For example, Louisiana representative Otto Passman, who for thirty years "pursued a relentless battle against spending for foreign aid" in the U.S. Congress, read these words into the Congressional Record on April 25, 1968:Those words were never uttered by Cicero, however; and the reason no one ever quoted them as such until about fifty years ago is because they weren't written until 1965. They sprang from the pen of Taylor Caldwell, a fiction writer best known for historical novels such as Captains and the Kings, her 1972 best-selling chronicle of the rise to wealth and power of an Irish immigrant named Joseph Francis Xavier Armagh (which was also made into a popular television mini-series in 1976).

Did Hillary Clinton Use Hand Signals to Manipulate the Debate?

['Conspiracy theory holds that Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt rigged the first presidential debate by communicating via hand signals.']

Just when we thought we'd had our fill of debate-related conspiracies, a new one came along, this one in the form of a video purportedly documenting that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and moderator Lester Holt had colluded to rig the first presidential debate through a system of secret hand signals: Scratching ones face is one of the oldest signals in the book. You can be sure if this was a blackjack table and the house noticed a player making similar signals to a dealer theyd be investigated. When the alt-right web site True Pundit shared the video, they did so along with the additional claim that Clinton had never made similar gestures in previous debates, campaign appearances, or speeches: Before critics view this video and scream Conspiracy, True Pundit cross referenced Clintons speeches, campaign appearances and her 2008 debate performances against President Obama. According to that analysis, Clinton never previously used these hand motions to supposedly scratch her face. In fact, she rarely touches her face at all. (So, you haters can save the trouble of instructing people to remove their tin-foil hats.) The above-displayed video does not provide any evidence that Hillary Clinton and Lester Holt communicated via hand signals so that Clinton could indicate to Holt when she wanted him to call on her so she could get in a "zinger." The creator of the video simply strung together several unrelated events Clinton scratching her face, Holt making a comment, Clinton replying to Trump and then claimed that they were somehow connected to a furtive signaling plot without providing any proof. But before we dig deeper into the video, let's look at the accompanying claims about it from True Pundit and Infowars. Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for decades. She was the First Lady of Arkansas in 1983, the First Lady of the United States in 1993, a U.S. Senator in 2001, a presidential candidate in 2008, Secretary of State in 2009, and and a presidential candidate again in 2016. It is simply ridiculous to claim that Clinton never once touched her face during a speech, campaign rally, or debate: Clinton touched her face during speech It should be noted that Hillary Clinton was not the only one making these gestures during the first presidential debate: It should also be noted that (as shown in the image at the head of this page) the two candidates were physically separated on the stage, and therefore in order to catch the supposed "signals" from Hillary Clinton, moderator Lester Holt who didn't have the advantage of the split-screen shot presented to television viewers would had to have been rather obviously watching her even when she was not speaking. If Donald Trump truly "dominated the early part of the debate" but then lost his advantage, the more logical explanation is that his opponent's strategy to throw him off his game simply worked as expected: strategy The quiet Mr. Trump took the first shift, presenting a general-election version of his forceful campaign persona minus the bluster, insults and defenses of his anatomy. He pushed his case firmly, hitting his campaigns focal points on the economy and trade. defenses of his anatomy But it didnt take long for Mrs. Clinton to find the other Mr. Trump under that thin second skin. Her needling began immediately. She referred to her opponent as Donald, where he pointedly called her Secretary Clinton. (Yes, is that O.K.? he asked at his first reference to her.) She referred to his starting a business with a $14 million loan from his father, which Mr. Trump preferred to call a very small loan. The digs targeted Mr. Trumps status and founding mythos, triggering his image-protection reflex. He became combative and rattled, letting his opponent lead him down rhetorical detours (at one point he revived an old feud with Rosie ODonnell) knowing that he would follow his ingrained ABCs: always be counterpunching. It was Tony Soprano vs. Dr. Melfi, TVs biggest antihero blustering against the woman who had gotten inside his head. This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often. three times

['loan']

False

Hillary Clinton has been in the public eye for decades. She was the First Lady of Arkansas in 1983, the First Lady of the United States in 1993, a U.S. Senator in 2001, a presidential candidate in 2008, Secretary of State in 2009, and and a presidential candidate again in 2016. It is simply ridiculous to claim that Clinton never once touched her face during a speech, campaign rally, or debate: If Donald Trump truly "dominated the early part of the debate" but then lost his advantage, the more logical explanation is that his opponent's strategy to throw him off his game simply worked as expected:The quiet Mr. Trump took the first shift, presenting a general-election version of his forceful campaign persona minus the bluster, insults and defenses of his anatomy. He pushed his case firmly, hitting his campaigns focal points on the economy and trade.This conspiracy theory also doesn't account for the much more obvious approach that if Hillary Clinton really wanted to say something during the course of the debate when it wasn't her turn to speak, she could simply have interrupted her opponent rather than invoking secret hand signals and waiting to be called upon by the moderator as she did in fact do multiple times ... while Donald Trump also did so, but three times as often.

Says Texas ranks 49th nationally in what we are doing to support our per-pupil investment in education in the state.

[]

A state senator opposed to a proposal intended to enable some children to attend private schools with government aid asserted that Texas already has a hard time keeping pace with other states. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, told Sen. Dan Patrick, R-Houston, during an April 9, 2013, committee meeting that Texas ranks 49th in the country in terms of per-pupil investment in education. She added that she prefers to prioritize funding for public schools. A reader asked us to verify that ranking. By email, Davis's spokesman, Rick Svatora, informed us that she was referring to a report described in a February 22, 2013, Dallas Morning News article stating that preliminary figures released by the National Education Association, the nation's largest teachers' union, indicate Texas schools are spending $8,400 per student this year. The national average is $11,455, the report said, placing Texas's per-student expenditures below every state except Arizona and Nevada. Thus, compared to other states, Texas reportedly ranks 48th in per-student spending. However, the News story notes that the association's analysis also considered spending in District of Columbia schools, which leaves Texas 49th in per-student spending among 51 jurisdictions. The News story stated that the association's comparisons, based on data provided by state education agencies, are among the most reliable in the nation and are frequently cited by officials in Texas and other states. The NEA has been issuing its annual reports on public school spending since the early 1960s. We turned to the association's report, downloadable here, and found the figures cited by the newspaper in Summary Table K, Estimated Expenditures for Public Schools, 2012-13, which indicates that Texas is spending less per student in average daily attendance (the aggregate attendance of a school during a reporting period divided by the number of days school is in session during that period) than all states except Arizona and Nevada. Elsewhere, the report states that these expenses include salaries for school personnel, student transportation, school books and materials, and energy costs. A wrinkle: Part of the report mentions that in making useful comparisons among states, a different method of counting students, fall enrollment, is preferred to average daily attendance because of its standardized definition. Based on fall enrollment, the report states that Texas is spending an estimated $7,886 per pupil, less than every state except Utah and Arizona, according to Table K. Therefore, it appears that two states trail Texas in per-pupil spending, regardless of how students are counted. For each state, Table K also lists current estimated expenditures for other programs, including expenses such as summer school and adult education, which are not part of regular public elementary and secondary day-school programs, the report states. The table also shows spending by each state's schools on interest on debt and capital outlays, which conservative observers such as the Texas Public Policy Foundation have argued should always be considered when making state-by-state comparisons. When we checked a similar Davis claim about Texas spending on education in 2011, a foundation spokesman pointed out a March 2010 report by the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute that reviewed 2008-09 budgets for districts in the nation's five largest cities, including Houston, concluding that average per-pupil spending was 44 percent higher than what was otherwise reported by public schools. Separately at the time, Frank Johnson, a statistician with the National Center for Education Statistics, informed us that the center does not take into account capital outlays in estimating per-pupil spending because such costs can create false assumptions about what is spent on instructional programs, school supplies, and teachers. In the latest education association report, Table K's last column presents each state's total school spending, incorporating all subcategories. We wondered how Texas compares in terms of all expenditures per pupil. The report does not provide such a calculation, so we conducted our own analysis, dividing the total spending for each state by the state's average daily attendance, as shown in the report's Summary Table D. By this method, it appears that more than $50 billion in total Texas school spending amounts to nearly $11,090 per pupil, placing Texas 38th nationally, ahead of states including California, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Arizona. By phone, a spokesman for the education association's Texas affiliate, the Texas State Teachers Association, suggested that it does not make sense to include all expenditures because school districts have varied commitments to capital outlays and debt, while spending reflected in the presented per-pupil figures is driven by legislative decisions about spending and finance formulas. Clay Robison followed up by email, stating that in many cases, those expenditures fund the construction of football stadiums and other facilities, such as fine arts centers. While I am not going to engage in the argument about football stadiums, I believe it does not provide a fair comparison of how much states are spending on students. In other words, capital costs combine new classroom construction, which benefits all students, with expenditures that do not apply to all students. Robison pointed out that according to the report's Table H-14, Texas spent $9,462 per pupil in 2010-11, which was before legislators cut education aid in the 2011 legislative session. This year, the association's report suggests that such spending is down by more than $1,000 per pupil from 2010-11. Davis stated that Texas ranks 49th in what we are doing to support our per-pupil investment in education in the state. A report drawing on state figures estimates Texas is spending $7,886 or $8,400 per student this year, depending on how students are counted. Both ways, Texas ranks third to last among the states. However, when including capital outlays, other education expenditures, and interest on debt, total estimated spending in Texas of nearly $11,090 per pupil places the state 38th among the states. But the senator focused on state investment, which, unlike locally determined debt and capital outlays, is driven by legislative actions. Our sense is that this is the appropriate comparison, though Davis failed to clarify that Texas is 49th by this measure in comparison to other states plus Washington, D.C., which is not a state. Absent this clarification, her claim rates as Mostly True.

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

True

By email, Davis spokesman, Rick Svatora, told us she was referring to a report described in a Feb. 22, 2013,Dallas Morning Newsarticlestating that preliminary figures released by the National Education Association, the nations largest teachers union, indicate Texas schools are spending $8,400 per student this year. The national average is $11,455, the report said, putting Texas per-student expenditures below every state save Arizona and Nevada.We turned to the associations report, downloadablehere, finding the figures cited by the newspaper in Summary Table K, Estimated Expenditures for Public Schools, 2012-13, which indicates that Texas this year is spending less per student in average daily attendance (the aggregate attendance of a school during a reporting period divided by the number of days school is in session that period) than all states but Arizona and Nevada. Elsewhere, the report says these expenses include salaries for school personnel, student transportation, school books and materials and energy costs.When we checked asimilar Davis claimabout Texas spending on education in 2011, a foundation spokesman pointed out a March 2010 report by the Libertarian-leaning Cato Institute that reviewed 2008-09 budgets for districts in the nations five largest cities, including Houston, concluding that average per-pupil spending was 44 percent higher than was otherwise reported by public schools. Separately at the time, Frank Johnson, a statistician with the National Center for Education Statistics, told us the center doesnt take into account capital outlays in estimating per-pupil spending because such costs can create false assumptions about whats spent on instructional programs, school supplies and teachers.We wondered, then, how Texas stacks up by all expenditures per pupil. The report does not present such a calculation, so wemade our own run, dividing the total spending for each state by the states average daily attendance, as shown in the reports Summary Table D. And by this approach, it appears that more than $50 billion in total Texas school spending breaks out to nearly $11,090 per pupil, placing Texas 38th nationally, ahead of states including California, Georgia, Oklahoma and Arizona.

Was stimulus money donated to the DNC by the Kennedy Center?

['A viral meme suggested the performing arts center "laundered" money for the DNC instead of paying Center employees.']

In late March 2020, a meme circulated on social media that falsely reported the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., had "laundered" COVID-19 stimulus money for the Democratic Party instead of paying its workforce, including musicians with the National Symphony Orchestra (NSO). The Kennedy Center, a major venue for classical performing arts in Washington, D.C., did receive $25 million from the $2.2 trillion federal relief package to stem financial fallout from the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. The relief package included millions earmarked to support various arts organizations. The Center also completed a privately funded $250 million renovation in late 2019 and received an appropriation of $41 million from the U.S. government in 2019. However, both examples listed in the meme are unrelated to the funds it received in the coronavirus relief package. Furthermore, the Center did indeed furlough workers, including orchestral musicians, even after learning it would receive $25 million from the U.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that President Donald Trump signed into law on March 27, 2020. However, the Center, which is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, did not donate $5 million of relief funds to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Under U.S. tax law, 501(c)(3) organizations are legally prohibited from making "contributions to political campaign funds." A spokeswoman for the Center confirmed that the organization made no contribution to the DNC and stated that the Center "has never donated money to a political organization." According to a statement from the Center, the organization furloughed the majority of its workforce beginning April 6 through "at least May 10, 2020." Even with the $25 million in federal relief funds, the Center said its financial projections showed it would "run out of cash as early as July." To stretch the Center's finances as long as possible, it stated, "we must take immediate action to change our expense structure and preserve cash." The Twitter user who originated the meme followed up by clarifying that she meant the scenario as a "hypothetical" and not as something to be taken literally.

['funds']

NEI

In late March 2020, a meme circulated on social media that falsely reported the John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C., had "laundered" COVID-19 stimulus money for the Democratic Party instead of paying its workforce, including musicians with the National Symphony Orchestra (NSO):The Kennedy Center, a major venue for classical performing arts in Washington, D.C., did receive $25 million from the $2.2 trillion federal-relief package to stem financial fallout from the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The relief package included millions earmarked to support various arts organizations.The Center also completed a privately funded $250 million renovation in late 2019 and received an appropriation in 2019 of $41 million from the U.S. government in 2019. Both examples listed in the meme, however, are unrelated to funds it received in the coronavirus-relief package.Furthermore, the Center did indeed furlough workers, including orchestral musicians, even after learning it would receive $25 million from the U.S. Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act that President Donald Trump signed into law on March 27, 2020. However, the Center, which is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization, did not then donate $5 million of relief funds to the Democratic National Committee (DNC). Under U.S. tax law, 501(c)3 organizations are legally prohibited from making "contributions to political campaign funds." A spokeswoman for the Center confirmed to us that the organization made no contribution to the DNC and said the Center "has never donated money to a political organization."The Twitter user who originated the meme followed up by clarifying that she meant the scenario as a "hypothetical" and not as something to be taken literally:

Bull Shark Spotted in Kentucky Lake?

['A fabricated report concerning a nine-foot-long bull shark allegedly found in Kentucky Lake originated on a do-it-yourself fake news web site.']

In June 2017, fake news web site React365 posted a captioned photo of a shark fin peeking out of a body of water with the headline "Bull Shark Spotted in Kentucky Lake": fake posted Slight though it was, the page got a lot of play on social media partly, we hope, in recognition of its humorous intent. A nine-foot-long bull shark was not, in fact, found in Kentucky Lake, a man-made reservoir along the western borders of Kentucky and Tennessee. The Kentucky Department of Fish and Wildlife Services made that clear in a sternly worded Facebook post dated 27 June 2017: React365 is a web site that provides users with tools to create their own fake news stories, and share them via Facebook and Twitter: React365 A grammatically challenged disclaimer on the site claims its purpose is entertainment: React365 users sometimes copy and repost the same material with minor changes to localize or personalize a joke in hopes of garnering shares on social media. Examples include: Bull Shark in Philpott Lake Virginia, Great White Sharks Spotted in Mississippi River, and Great White Sharks Found in Illinois River. For that matter, ersatz shark sightings are a perennial favorite on fake news web sites and social media generally. For example, we've previously debunked: Bull Shark Caught in the Ohio River, Fisherman Captures 3,000-Pound Great White Shark in Great Lakes, and Photo of a Baby Great White Shark. Bull Shark in Philpott Lake Virginia Great White Sharks Spotted in Mississippi River Great White Sharks Found in Illinois River Bull Shark Caught in the Ohio River Fisherman Captures 3,000-Pound Great White Shark in Great Lakes Photo of a Baby Great White Shark Sticklers for detail will have noticed that the image shared with the React365 post does not depict the fin of a freshwater bull shark, but that of a great white shark instead. The image, normally credited to UC Davis, has been used all over the Internet for the past seven years or more, including in actual news stories. actual ABC7 News. "More than a Ton of Illegal Shark Fins Seized in San Francisco." 14 February 2014. React365. "Bull Shark Spotted in Kentucky Lake." 26 June 2017.

['share']

False

In June 2017, fake news web site React365 posted a captioned photo of a shark fin peeking out of a body of water with the headline "Bull Shark Spotted in Kentucky Lake":React365 is a web site that provides users with tools to create their own fake news stories, and share them via Facebook and Twitter:React365 users sometimes copy and repost the same material with minor changes to localize or personalize a joke in hopes of garnering shares on social media. Examples include: Bull Shark in Philpott Lake Virginia, Great White Sharks Spotted in Mississippi River, and Great White Sharks Found in Illinois River. For that matter, ersatz shark sightings are a perennial favorite on fake news web sites and social media generally. For example, we've previously debunked: Bull Shark Caught in the Ohio River, Fisherman Captures 3,000-Pound Great White Shark in Great Lakes, and Photo of a Baby Great White Shark.Sticklers for detail will have noticed that the image shared with the React365 post does not depict the fin of a freshwater bull shark, but that of a great white shark instead. The image, normally credited to UC Davis, has been used all over the Internet for the past seven years or more, including in actual news stories.

Because of #TaxReform, 4 million American workers have received raises and bonuses, and 90% of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks this month.

[]

U.S. Rep. Chris Collins said many Americans are already benefiting from the tax law Republicans in Congress passed in December. Collins used the claim to attack House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ina tweet. Because of #TaxReform, 4 million American workers have received raises and bonuses, and 90% of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks this month, Collins tweeted. Despite what @NancyPelosi may say, this isnt crumbs for hardworking families in #WNY. Pelosi hadpreviouslycalled the tax benefits for middle- and low-income earners crumbs compared to what wealthy earners would receive. Republicans who support the tax plan disagree. They believe the tax bill provides significant relief for those workers. Collins, a Republican from suburban Buffalo, says those benefits have already started. Is he right? 4 million American workers President Donald Trumpclaimed3 million workers in the U.S. had already received a pay increase or bonus thanks to the tax bill at the end of January. PolitiFact rated that claim Mostly True. PolitiFact checked Trumps claim using data from Americans for Tax Reform, a group that advocates for lower taxes. The group supported the Republican tax bill. The group has a running list of companies that have announced bonuses or other benefits based on press releases and media reports since the tax law passed. At the end of January, at least 286 companies had announced benefits for more than 3 million workers. That number has since grown to more than 4 million workers from 408 companies,according tothe group. Those workers have gotten a bonus, pay increase, 401(k) hike, or utility rate cut because of the new tax law, according to reports. Thats not a small number of workers, but it accounts for less than 3 percent of the total employedpopulationin the U.S. Experts also told PolitiFact that some of the bonuses may have already been planned before the tax law to retain workers in a tight labor market. Larger paychecks The second part of Collins claim is based on a prediction from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The agency said in January that 90 percent of working Americans would have less federal tax withheld from their paychecks by the middle of February. Employers had until Feb. 15 to implement the lower federal tax rates. Were estimating that 90 percent of workers are going to see an increase in take-home pay because of the Tax Cuts [and Jobs] Act, U.S. Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin said. We reached out to the agency to see if its prediction panned out for February. We did not hear back. The actual share of workers with more take-home pay may be lower than 90 percent, according to Howard Gleckman, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. It is true that roughly 90 percent of Americans will get a tax cut this year as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Gleckman said. But many Americans will not see higher take-home pay because of other factors, like higher health insurance premiums. Higher premiums could exceed any increase in take-home pay. Premiums for individual and employer-sponsored health plans are expected toriseagain this year. An argument could be made that without the new tax rates, employees would have less money to pay for the higher premiums. More benefits from the law will be available during next years tax filing period. Thats when other provisions begin, like a higher standard deduction for filers. Our ruling Collins said Because of #TaxReform, 4 million American workers have received raises and bonuses, and 90% of Americans are seeing bigger paychecks this month. The first part of Collins claim is correct based on a compilation of companies from a tax cut advocacy group. PolitiFact used the same list whenfact-checkingTrump on a similar claim. The second part of Collins claim is less clear. The Treasury Department predicted 90 percent of workers would have lower federal taxes in February. We dont know how many had higher take-home pay, Gleckman said. The statement is accurate but needed additional information. We rate it Mostly True. PolitiFact Republican guest columnist and former U.S. Rep. David Jolly said PolitiFacts fact-checking of this statement reveals the challenges confronted by disciplined fact-checkers to confine themselves only to a politicians specific comment, and the challenges equally faced by readers of PolitiFact whose opinions may often be arrived at through a broader analysis of additional facts not addressed in a single fact-checking column. Whether Rep. Collins assertion represents the full policy implications of the new law or whether it intentionally avoids the additional complexities of its impact, the fact is his statement was accurate. Read his critiquehere.Read more about our guest columnistshere.

['Taxes', 'New York']

True

Collins used the claim to attack House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi ina tweet.Pelosi hadpreviouslycalled the tax benefits for middle- and low-income earners crumbs compared to what wealthy earners would receive.President Donald Trumpclaimed3 million workers in the U.S. had already received a pay increase or bonus thanks to the tax bill at the end of January. PolitiFact rated that claim Mostly True.That number has since grown to more than 4 million workers from 408 companies,according tothe group. Those workers have gotten a bonus, pay increase, 401(k) hike, or utility rate cut because of the new tax law, according to reports.Thats not a small number of workers, but it accounts for less than 3 percent of the total employedpopulationin the U.S.Higher premiums could exceed any increase in take-home pay. Premiums for individual and employer-sponsored health plans are expected toriseagain this year. An argument could be made that without the new tax rates, employees would have less money to pay for the higher premiums.The first part of Collins claim is correct based on a compilation of companies from a tax cut advocacy group. PolitiFact used the same list whenfact-checkingTrump on a similar claim.Read his critiquehere.Read more about our guest columnistshere.

In the 1950s and 1960s, the minimum wage was such that it would lift you out of poverty.

[]

In the battle to raise the federal minimum wage, proponents have been arguing that the minimum wage now buys far less than it has in the past, and is no longer high enough to lift someone out of poverty. Duringa May 1 speechon the floor of the U.S. Senate, Jack Reed (D-RI) offered a version of that argument. The federal minimum wage has not been increased since 2009 and today an individual who works 40 hours per week, 52 weeks a year, at the federal minimum wage earns $15,080 per year, and that is nearly $5,000 below the federal poverty level for a family of three, and almost $9,000 below the poverty level for a family of four, he said. People who work hard for a living shouldn't have to live in poverty, and that was not the case in the 50s and the 60s when the minimum wage was such that it would lift you out of poverty, Reed said. And I think that's what we have to do today. Reed supports a proposal to raise the minimum wage to $10.10, which would bring a family of three above the poverty threshold. For this fact check, we are going to examine whether the minimum wage was really high enough in the 1950s and 1960s to pull people out of poverty. We asked Reed's spokesman for the source of his statistic. While we waited for a response, we looked on our own. Forhistorical minimum wage data, we went to the U.S. Department of Labor. During the time period Reed was talking about, the minimum rose six times, starting at 40 cents per hour and eventually reaching $1.60. How much did it take to lift someone out of poverty during that era? That's a much harder question to answer, and it depends on the size of the family, something Reed wasn't specific about. The federal poverty level, the adequacy of which is stillthe subject of debate, wasn't developed until the early 1960s, so it wasn't even in existence during the start of the time period Reed was talking about. Thefirst poverty threshold, in 1963, was about $3,100 for a family of four. Someone earning the minimum wage that year would have earned $2,460, enough for a family of three but not a family of four, according to theSocial Welfare and the Economy pageon the Social Security Administration's Office of Retirement and Disability Policy website. Those data only go back to 1959. We used acost of living calculatorfrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics to get a rough idea of living costs from 1950 through 1958. According to our calculations, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the minimum wage was high enough to keep an individual above the poverty level The first time it was enough to push a two-person family above the poverty level was in 1956, when it jumped to $1 an hour. But throughout the 1950s and 1960s, in most years, the minimum wage couldnt lift a family of three out of poverty and was never enough for a family of four. When we shared our information with Reed's office, they provided information that confirmed our findings. Reed spokesman Chip Unruh said the senators statement about the minimum wage and poverty levels in the 50s and 60s is accurate. I think it is very clear that Reed is talking about his perception that hard work used to get you a livable wage, he said. The federal poverty rate as measured today didn't always exist as a unit of measurement, but that doesn't mean poverty itself didn't exist . Reed referenced families earlier in his speech, but he also was referencing individuals. Our ruling Sen. Jack Reed, lobbying for an increase in the minimum wage, said that in the 1950s and 1960s, the minimum wage was such that it would lift you out of poverty. We found that during that period, the minimum wage always generated enough income to keep an individual out of poverty. But when it comes to making enough money to support a family -- and Reed made several references to families -- that wasn't always true during those two decades. Based on federal data, the minimum wage didn't become high enough to support a two-person family until about 1956 and it wasn't consistently high enough to lift a family of three until 1967. It never covered a family of four, regarded as a typical family size in that era. One might assume that Reed was talking about families, but the statement we're checking isn't specific. Because that statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

['Rhode Island', 'Economy', 'History', 'Income', 'Poverty', 'Welfare']

True

Duringa May 1 speechon the floor of the U.S. Senate, Jack Reed (D-RI) offered a version of that argument.Forhistorical minimum wage data, we went to the U.S. Department of Labor. During the time period Reed was talking about, the minimum rose six times, starting at 40 cents per hour and eventually reaching $1.60.The federal poverty level, the adequacy of which is stillthe subject of debate, wasn't developed until the early 1960s, so it wasn't even in existence during the start of the time period Reed was talking about.Thefirst poverty threshold, in 1963, was about $3,100 for a family of four.Someone earning the minimum wage that year would have earned $2,460, enough for a family of three but not a family of four, according to theSocial Welfare and the Economy pageon the Social Security Administration's Office of Retirement and Disability Policy website.Those data only go back to 1959. We used acost of living calculatorfrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics to get a rough idea of living costs from 1950 through 1958.One might assume that Reed was talking about families, but the statement we're checking isn't specific. Because that statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate itMostly True.(If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

Jimmy Carter on Helping the Poor

['"Anyone unwilling to work should not eat"?']

A purported quote from Jimmy Carter admonishing, "If you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying that you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don't!" sounds to many like something the former U.S. president would have said, as he has long exhibited a deep commitment to Christianity, established himself as an international humanitarian (including founding the Carter Center, an organization dedicated to advancing human rights), and was the recipient of the 2002 Nobel Peace Prize for his work "to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development." However, as much as this sentiment might sound like something Jimmy Carter could have or would have said, he didn't originate the wording used here. The quote, as presented in the above graphic, appears to have originated with comedian John Fugelsang, who at one time presented a segment on Current TV's Viewpoint program entitled "Viewpoint's Revoltingly Fake Christian of the Week." The segment for the week of May 29, 2013, targeted Tennessee congressman Stephen Fincher, of whom Fugelsang said: "Congressman Stephen Fincher, a Republican from Tennessee, just took the Bible so far out of context he had to apply for a visa. Fincher is a fierce opponent of food aid for poor Americans. You know, like Jesus. He recently fought to cut $4.1 billion from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. If you only watch Fox, that means 'food stamps.' And thanks to the fine work of Fincher and his colleagues, 2 million working American families, children, and seniors have already been cut off from food assistance. So during a recent House agricultural committee debate, he decided to show how Christian it is to turn your back on unemployed suffering Americans by quoting one of the favorite Bible passages of revoltingly fake right-wing Christians: 2 Thessalonians 3:10, 'anyone unwilling to work should not eat.' Fincher and the GOP cut services for the poor and taxes for the rich. And it's a free country. They're allowed. But if you don't want your tax dollars to help the poor, then stop saying you want a country based on Christian values. Because you don't. And that's why Representative Fincher is our 'revoltingly fake Christian of the week'!"

['taxes']

False

However, as much as this sentiment might sound like something Jimmy Carter could have or would have said, he didn't originate the wording used here. The quote in the version presented in the above graphic appears to have originated with comedian John Fugelsang, who at one time presented a segment on Current TV's Viewpoint program entitled "Viewpoint's Revoltingly Fake Christian of the Week." The segment for the week of 29 May 2013 targeted Tennessee congressman Stephen Fincher, of whom Fugelsang said:

Has California declared that it will provide COVID-19 stimulus payments to undocumented residents while also terminating 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.

['taxes']

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.

'Can You Hear Me?' Scam Warning

["Dozens of news outlets reported on a purported scam wherein fraudsters supposedly falsify charges by randomly calling people and asking 'Can you hear me?'"]

In late January 2017, news outlets across the United States reported on a purported "can you hear me?" telephone scam. According to thosereports, the scam begins with an unsolicited phone call to the putative mark. After the caller makes contact they ask the recipient "Can you hear me?" to elicit a response of "yes," and a potential onslaught of unauthorized charges ensues. On 26 January 2017, CBS News reported the workings of the scam thusly: reported Virginia police are now warning about the scheme, which also sparked warnings by Pennsylvania authorities late last year. The "can you hear me" con is actually a variation on earlier scams aimed at getting the victim to say the word "yes" in a phone conversation. That affirmative response is recorded by the fraudster and used to authorize unwanted charges on a phone or utility bill or on a purloined credit card. "You say 'yes,' it gets recorded and they say that you have agreed to something," said Susan Grant, director of consumer protection for the Consumer Federation of America. "I know that people think it's impolite to hang up, but it's a good strategy." But how can you get charged if you don't provide a payment method? The con artist already has your phone number, and many phone providers pass through third-party charges. At first glance, the warning sounded reasonably valid: major news outlets covered it, and a Better Business Bureau satellite office reported the scam as well. But a closer examination revealed some questionable elements. Primarily, we haven't yet been able to identify any scenario under which a scammer could authorize charges in another person's name simply by possessing a voice recording of that person saying "yes," without also already possessing a good deal of personal and account information for that person, and without being able to reproduce any other form of verbal response from that person. Moreover, even if such a scenario existed, it's hard to imagine why scammers would need to utilize an actual audio recording of the victim's repeating the word "yes" rather than simply providing that response themselves. As far as we know, phone companies, utilities, and credit card issuers don't maintain databases of voice recordings of their customers and use them to perform real-time audio matching to verify identities during customer service calls. In all the news reports we found, interviewees merely reported having been asked the common question ("Can you hear me?") but did not aver that they themselves had fallen prey to scammers: merely reported Lori Goodwin, who lives in Tampa, has been getting about three of these calls every week for the last several months. "If you hear someone say 'I can't hear you' or 'Can you hear me,' the first reaction you have is to say 'Yes,'" she said. "It's almost instinctual, so that's what they're looking for." Goodwin said she's always just hung up the phone, but she didn't realize until recently how dangerous those calls can be. When Mary Kuczborski of Clinton Township answers her phone, she doesn't expect to be hit with questions. But that's what happened Thursday evening. "When it came on it was a gentleman, nice voice, and he says, 'can you hear me?,'" Kuczborski said. Mary was the latest intended victim of a nationwide scam. Asking 'can you hear me?' is aimed at getting the victim to say 'yes.' The response is recorded by the scammer and then used to authorize unwanted charges on phone or utility bills or credit cards. Consumer protection experts say it may be rude, but if you get a 'can you hear me' call, the right response is to just hang up. Mary was a little more colorful. "Now, what do you want? And it went click," she said. BBB of Western Pennsylvania warned of the scam on 18 October 2016 but described no specific instances of individuals being scammed. That BBB satellite referenced the organization's nationwide Scam Tracker, but all related entries we found there were submittedby people already aware of news reports about the purported scam: warned of Scam Tracker A CBS News report on the purported "Can you hear me?" had prompted police warnings in 2016, but yet again we found no indication that anyone who had actually been scammed out of money by saying "yes" to a caller had stepped forward. (It's not uncommon for police departments to spread dubious crime warnings on a "better safe than sorry" basis, such as one about a $100 bill carjacking ploy.) carjacking The "Can you hear me?" scam for now seems to be more a suggestion of a hypothetical crime scheme than a real one that is actually robbing victims of money. In messages we left with the BBB, the FTC, and the Consumer Federation of America, we asked a question absent from all the news reports we've encountered about this scam: "Are there any documented cases of people being victimized in this manner?" We have not yet received any affirmative response to those queries. Jackson, Curtis. "Nationwide 'Can You Hear Me' Phone Scam Targets Michigan Residents." WXYZ. 26 January 2017. Kristof, Kathy. "Beware New 'Can You Hear Me' Scam." CBS News. 26 January 2017. Trimble, Grady. "'Can You Hear Me?' Phone Scam Reaches Tampa." WTSP. 26 January 2017. Better Business Bureau of Western Pennsylvania. "BBB Scam Alert: Can You Hear Me?" 18 October 2016. Better Business Bureau. "Scam Tracker." Accessed 27 January 2017.

['credit']

NEI

On 26 January 2017, CBS News reported the workings of the scam thusly:In all the news reports we found, interviewees merely reported having been asked the common question ("Can you hear me?") but did not aver that they themselves had fallen prey to scammers:BBB of Western Pennsylvania warned of the scam on 18 October 2016 but described no specific instances of individuals being scammed. That BBB satellite referenced the organization's nationwide Scam Tracker, but all related entries we found there were submittedby people already aware of news reports about the purported scam:A CBS News report on the purported "Can you hear me?" had prompted police warnings in 2016, but yet again we found no indication that anyone who had actually been scammed out of money by saying "yes" to a caller had stepped forward. (It's not uncommon for police departments to spread dubious crime warnings on a "better safe than sorry" basis, such as one about a $100 bill carjacking ploy.)

Says Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career.

[]

Both Republican and Democratic voters have little love for prescription drug makers. When asked,four out of five Americanssay the cost of drugs is unreasonable. Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., has signed on to a bevy of plans to bring prices down. There are too many people profiteering off of the pain of people in America, from pharmaceutical companies to insurers, Booker said at thefirst Democratic debatein Miami. The Trump campaign fired off a reminder that Booker has history with the drug makers. Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career, @TrumpWarRoomtweeted June 26, the night of the first Democratic debate. FACT: Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career.pic.twitter.com/1HUfFVBGVU By one measure, that number is correct. But a more granular look at drug maker political money delivers a lower number, and the tweet gives no hint that Booker stopped taking pharmaceutical money in 2017. The Trump campaign sent us toBookers career summary pageon the Open Secrets website, a reliable source of federal political money data. Booker first ran for Senate in 2013. Since then, people and groups tied to the pharmaceutical/health products industry have given Booker $411,948. The number is actually higher. Booker runs a leadership PAC, a common device on Capitol Hill to raise money for a variety of uses, from travel expenses to helping other candidates fund their campaigns.Bookers PACgot $56,000 since 2014, for a grand total of $468,000. Theres an important caveat: That industry group includes much more than drug makers. Drug wholesalers, medical equipment makers and dietary supplement companies all fall under this category. The wholesalers would have a stake in bills aimed at lowering prescription drug costs, but many other companies, such as Nestl, which owns several dietary supplement brands, and Medtronic, maker of insulin pumps and much more, would go untouched by such legislation. Boiled down to drug makers alone, according to data pulled by the Open Secrets staff, Bookers total is $327,000. That includes both donations to his campaign committee and his leadership PAC. One last wrinkle would add some money back in. The Trump campaign tweet was based solely on Bookers federal receipts. But as mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013, Bookerraised millions. Some of that came from people tied to drug makers. A notable example is Jonathan Sackler, a member of the family behindPurdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. In 2009,Sackler gave $26,000 to Booker Team for Newark, a joint campaign committee to help elect Booker and a slate of city councilors. At the end of the day, we found that drug makers gave Bookers campaigns upwards of $350,000. Thats less than the tweet claimed, but still a hefty amount. And if drug wholesalers are added in, the gap largely disappears. In June 2017, Booker told NPR he had stopped taking industry donations. We put a pause on even receiving contributions from pharma companies because it arouses so much criticism,Booker said. Recently, hetweeted, Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. Ive said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives they are part of this problem. Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. Ive said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives they are part of this problem.Its time to work on a solution. Chip in to help us run a people-powered campaign As far as his PAC money, that revenue stream has died for Booker. Up through 2016, drug makers had given him $202,000. Since then, as the chart below shows, the amount from drug makers directly is zero, with some ongoing donations from individuals who work for drug makers. New Jersey is home tomany large pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Individuals who work for them have continued to give to Booker, but since 2016, that has fallen from nearly $100,000 to about $26,000. Bookers campaign noted that he joined with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on adrug importation bill. Booker also put forward legislation that would allow the Medicare program tonegotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. These and other measures have drawn strong opposition from the drug industry. The Trump campaign said that in the course of his career, Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry. The number is close. What the tweet ignores is that Booker stopped taking money from pharmaceutical industry PACs and top executives. Since 2016, Booker received zero dollars from drug makers and individual contributions have fallen by 75%. The average reader of the tweet would have no idea that Booker has shunned pharmaceutical money for the past two years. Thats additional context, but Booker did accept the money in years past. That meets our definition of Mostly True.

['National', 'Campaign Finance', 'Health Care']

True

Both Republican and Democratic voters have little love for prescription drug makers. When asked,four out of five Americanssay the cost of drugs is unreasonable.There are too many people profiteering off of the pain of people in America, from pharmaceutical companies to insurers, Booker said at thefirst Democratic debatein Miami.Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career, @TrumpWarRoomtweeted June 26, the night of the first Democratic debate.FACT: Cory Booker has accepted over $400,000 from the pharmaceutical industry during his political career.pic.twitter.com/1HUfFVBGVUThe Trump campaign sent us toBookers career summary pageon the Open Secrets website, a reliable source of federal political money data. Booker first ran for Senate in 2013. Since then, people and groups tied to the pharmaceutical/health products industry have given Booker $411,948.The number is actually higher. Booker runs a leadership PAC, a common device on Capitol Hill to raise money for a variety of uses, from travel expenses to helping other candidates fund their campaigns.Bookers PACgot $56,000 since 2014, for a grand total of $468,000.One last wrinkle would add some money back in. The Trump campaign tweet was based solely on Bookers federal receipts. But as mayor of Newark from 2006 to 2013, Bookerraised millions. Some of that came from people tied to drug makers. A notable example is Jonathan Sackler, a member of the family behindPurdue Pharma, the maker of OxyContin. In 2009,Sackler gave $26,000 to Booker Team for Newark, a joint campaign committee to help elect Booker and a slate of city councilors.We put a pause on even receiving contributions from pharma companies because it arouses so much criticism,Booker said.Recently, hetweeted, Big pharma companies need to be held criminally liable for the opioid crisis. Ive said I would not take contributions from corporate PACs, from pharma executives they are part of this problem.New Jersey is home tomany large pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Novartis and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Individuals who work for them have continued to give to Booker, but since 2016, that has fallen from nearly $100,000 to about $26,000.Bookers campaign noted that he joined with Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., on adrug importation bill. Booker also put forward legislation that would allow the Medicare program tonegotiate lower prices for prescription drugs. These and other measures have drawn strong opposition from the drug industry.

Did Fauci Warn Trump in 2017 That a 'Surprise Outbreak' Was Coming?

['Dr. Anthony Fauci has led the NIAID for more than three decades, advising five U.S. presidents on global health threats.']

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 spring of 2020, as debate raged over the timeliness and effectiveness of U.S. President Donald Trump's response to the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic, some critics pointed to an article dating from shortly before Trump's January 2017 inauguration, in which Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), seemingly warned that the incoming president would "no doubt" be faced with a "surprise infectious disease outbreak": This image did reflect a genuine article, published on Jan. 11, 2017 (nine days before Trump's inauguration), headlined "Fauci: No doubt Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak." That article read (in part): published Anthony S. Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, said there is no doubt Donald J. Trump will be confronted with a surprise infectious disease outbreak during his presidency. Fauci has led the NIAID for more than 3 decades, advising the past five United States presidents on global health threats from the early days of the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s through to the current Zika virus outbreak. During a forum on pandemic preparedness at Georgetown University, Fauci said the Trump administration will not only be challenged by ongoing global health threats such as influenza and HIV, but also a surprise disease outbreak. The history of the last 32 years that I have been the director of the NIAID will tell the next administration that there is no doubt they will be faced with the challenges their predecessors were faced with, he said. As noted above, Dr. Fauci's comments were made during a Georgetown University forum on pandemic preparedness, at which Fauci delivered the keynote address on the subject of "Pandemic Preparedness in the Next Administration," which he opened with the following statement: "I thought I would bring that perspective [of my experience in five administrations] to the topic today, [which] is the issue of pandemic preparedness. And if there's one message that I want to leave with you today based on my experience ... [it] is that there is no question that there will be a challenge to the coming [Trump] administration in the arena of infectious diseases ... both chronic infectious diseases in the sense of already ongoing disease ... but also there will be a surprise outbreak, and I hope by the end my relatively short presentation you will understand why history, the history of the last 32 years that I've been the director of the NAIAD, will tell the next administration that there's no doubt in anyone's mind that they will be faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with." https://youtu.be/DNXGAxGJgQI Dr. Fauci did not literally warn in January 2017 that the Trump administration would certainly face a deadly pandemic affecting the U.S., but he said more generally (while speaking on the subject of pandemic preparedness) there was "no question" that a "surprise outbreak" of infectious disease would occur. The outgoing (Obama) administration had already faced multiple such events, including the 2009 swine flu (H1N1) pandemic, the 20152016 Zika virus epidemic, and the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa: swine flu Zika virus Ebola outbreak Fauci and others noted some of the disease outbreaks that recent administrations have faced, including current President Barack Obama, whose administration was tested early on with an H1N1 influenza pandemic in 2009. More recently, the administration was forced to repurpose almost $600 million in federal funds set aside for the Ebola outbreak when Republicans rejected Obamas request for $1.9 billion to fund the nations Zika response. Healio "Fauci: No Doubt Trump Will Face Surprise Infectious Disease Outbreak." 11 January 2017. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "Zika Virus Spreads to New Areas Region of the Americas, May 2015 January 2016." 29 January 2016. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "2014-2016 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa." Accessed 14 May 2020. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. "2009 H1N1 Pandemic (H1N1pdm09 Virus)." Accessed 14 May 2020.

['funds']

True

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. This image did reflect a genuine article, published on Jan. 11, 2017 (nine days before Trump's inauguration), headlined "Fauci: No doubt Trump will face surprise infectious disease outbreak." That article read (in part):Dr. Fauci did not literally warn in January 2017 that the Trump administration would certainly face a deadly pandemic affecting the U.S., but he said more generally (while speaking on the subject of pandemic preparedness) there was "no question" that a "surprise outbreak" of infectious disease would occur. The outgoing (Obama) administration had already faced multiple such events, including the 2009 swine flu (H1N1) pandemic, the 20152016 Zika virus epidemic, and the 2014-16 Ebola outbreak in West Africa:

The Affordable Care Act permits mandated home visits.

['Does a provision of Obamacare allow federal agents to conduct forced home inspections?']

Claim: A provision of Obamacare allows federal agents to conduct forced home inspections and remove children from the custody of their parents. Examples: [Green, September 2013] Grassfire's Liberty News team is reporting on a little-known aspect of ObamaCare FORCED HOME INSPECTIONS. Simply put, provisions of ObamaCare allow federal agents to activate forced home inspections. The inspections are being sold as a simple act to ensure eligibility, but upon digging deeper we find the agents will have broad authority in using the new tool to clamp down on privacy and violate American rights. Homeschool your kids? Smoke a cigar from time to time? Have a member who was at one time active duty military? ObamaCare enables agents to force a home inspection upon you. And no state will be off limits to the ObamaCare inspections. [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] DID YOU KNOW... Even your children belong to the government. Under Obamacare, on October1, 2013, CPS field agents, armed with a manual published by Human Healthand Services and codified under Obamacare will begin operating under thepower granted to them by Obamacare. Subsequently, they will be able toconduct forced home visits without a warrant. Things such as a (yetundefined) bad grade, missing more than 5 days in school in any one month,can get a parent to be declared guilty of educational neglect. Having agun or beer in your house can get your children removed from your custody.Even the traditional act of grounding your child for misbehavior will getyou declared to be guilty of "isolation neglect" and subject your childfor removal from your authority and your home. If you are a parent and youhave not heard of this provision of Obamacare, I would suggest you readthe 110 page manual that was created by the United Nations. This is theHHS/CPS field manual that goes into effect this week! Origins: This alarmist warning about a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] (commonly known as "Obamacare") supposedly authorizing federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections" under the guise of ensuring eligibility began in August 2013 as a blog post that was picked up and uncritically spread via other blogs and web sites. The original entry claimed, in part, that: blog post According to an Obamacare provision millions of Americans will be targeted. The Health and Human Services' website states that your family will be targeted if you fall under the "high-risk" categories below: Families where mom is not yet 21. Families where someone is a tobacco user. Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities. Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States. There is no reference to Medicaid being the determinant for a family to be "eligible." In 2011, the HHS announced $224 million will be given to support evidence-based home visiting programs to "help parents and children." Individuals from the state will implement these leveraging strategies to "enhance program sustainability." Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown states, "This is not a 'voluntary' program. The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks. A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to 'intervention' in 'school readiness' and 'social-emotional developmental indicators.' A farm family may be subject to 'intervention' in order to 'prevent child injuries' The sky is the limit." No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections." What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA's creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which "facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health and MIECHV development outcomes for at-risk children through evidence-based home visiting programs" by awarding development grants to states that "currently have modest home visiting programs and want to build on existing efforts." The grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention. (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.) extant As noted in a September 2011 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS): press release "Home visiting programs play a critical role in the nation's efforts to help children get off to a strong start. Parenting is a tough job, and helping parents succeed pays big dividends in a child's well-being and healthy development," said HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. Both the formula and competitive grants will be used by state agencies to support home visiting programs that bring nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes. They work with families to evaluate their circumstances, help parents gain the skills they need to succeed in promoting healthy development in their children, and connect families to the kinds of help that can make a real difference in a child's health, development, and ability to learn. Research has shown that home visiting programs can improve outcomes for children and families, including improving maternal and child health, reducing child maltreatment, increasing parental employment, and improving the rate at which children reach developmental milestones. HHS undertook an exhaustive review of the research evidence on different home visiting programs to identify the models that have been shown to work. The PPACA defines high-risk households as: Low-income eligible families. Eligible families who are pregnant women who have not attained age 21. Eligible families that have a history of child abuse or neglect or have had interactions with child welfare services. Eligible families that have a history of substance abuse or need substance abuse treatment. Eligible families that have users of tobacco products in the home. Eligible families that are or have children with low student achievement. Eligible families with children with developmental delays or disabilities. Eligible families who, or that include individuals who, are serving or formerly served in the Armed Forces,including such families that have members of the Armed Forces who have had multiple deployments outside of theUnited States. However, nothing in the PPACA authorizes federal or state agents to "target" and conduct forced inspections at such households. The PPACA requires that MIECHV grant recipients give priority to such households (because that's where the return on money spent is highest), but as stated in the press release quoted above, the MIECHV grant program brings "nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes. Likewise, the relevant section (p. 251) of the PPACA specifically states that MIECHV grant recipients must provide "assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary." PPACA Last updated: 5 October 2013

['income']

False

Origins: This alarmist warning about a provision of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act [PPACA] (commonly known as "Obamacare") supposedly authorizing federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections" under the guise of ensuring eligibility began in August 2013 as a blog post that was picked up and uncritically spread via other blogs and web sites. The original entry claimed, in part, that:No provision of the PPACA authorizes federal agents to undertake "forced home inspections." What this item (erroneously) references is the PPACA's creation of the Maternal, Infant, and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program (MIECHV), which "facilitates collaboration and partnership at the federal, state, and community levels to improve health andThe grant program is intended to assist states (not the federal government) in conducting voluntary in-home visits to high-risk households with children younger than the age of five to help match those families with government services related to issues such as maternal and child health, child development, school readiness, economic self-sufficiency, and child abuse prevention. (These home visiting programs are not something new created by Obamacare; there were extant home visiting programs in nearly every state prior to the passage of the PPACA.) As noted in a September 2011 press release from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS):However, nothing in the PPACA authorizes federal or state agents to "target" and conduct forced inspections at such households. The PPACA requires that MIECHV grant recipients give priority to such households (because that's where the return on money spent is highest), but as stated in the press release quoted above, the MIECHV grant program brings "nurses, social workers, or other health care professionals to meet with at-risk families that agree to meet with them in their homes. Likewise, the relevant section (p. 251) of the PPACA specifically states that MIECHV grant recipients must provide "assurances that the entity will establish procedures to ensure that the participation of each eligible family in the program is voluntary."

Greg Abbott has benefitted from payday lenders who have given him $300,000 and then received a ruling from him that they can operate in a loophole in the law that allows them to charge unlimited rates and fees.

[]

Wendy Davis, when asked if she had unethically profited while in public office, suggested that her opponent had committed infractions, including one that resulted from hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations. Responding to a reporter at the Sept. 30, 2014, gubernatorial debate in Dallas, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee and Fort Worth state senator accused Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, her Republican foe, of selling out Texans to serve the interests of those who make donations to his campaign. As an example, Davis pointed out payday lenders who had given Abbott's campaign $300,000 and then received a ruling from him that allowed them to operate in a loophole in the law permitting them to charge unlimited rates and fees. Davis was revisiting a topic she had consistently explored: that a 2006 letter from Abbott's state office allowed payday lenders to skirt state lending laws. After Davis proclaimed that the link between Abbott's campaign donations and official action was described by the El Paso Times in January 2014, we found her statement that Texas payday lenders were charging 1,000 percent interest to be Half True. In rare instances, lenders charged 1,000 percent annual interest, but payday loan rates then averaged 465 percent. For this fact check, we gauged whether Abbott accumulated hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign donations and then issued a ruling favorable to payday lenders, which offer low-dollar, high-interest short-term loans targeting low-income people who live paycheck to paycheck. The loans are generally for amounts between $100 and $500 and are most often issued for two weeks. They are considered risky because low-income borrowers are relatively unlikely to be able to pay them back. To our inquiry about the $300,000 described as given to Abbott, Davis's campaign spokesman Zac Petkanas emailed us records of Abbott's campaign contributions as filed in campaign reports at the Texas Ethics Commission covering Sept. 16, 2002, nearly through July 2014. Our own sampling of state records showed Abbott's campaign received: --$80,000 from Trevor Ahlberg, CEO of Irving-based payday lender Cash Store, in eight installments from Aug. 16, 2006, to June 16, 2014; --$57,500 from Roderick Aycox, founder of Georgia-based payday lender LoanMax, in five installments from Nov. 12, 2009, to June 9, 2014; --$30,500 from Cash America International Inc. PAC in 14 contributions from Sept. 16, 2002, to July 29, 2014; --$30,000 from Ace Cash Express Inc. PAC, in eight donations from Oct. 5, 2005, to July 29, 2014. However, according to Petkanas and state records, less than 5 percent of the total payday-lender donations, or $13,000, had come in by Jan. 12, 2006, which was the date Abbott's office issued the ruling criticized by Davis. By phone, Petkanas clarified that Davis did not mean to imply in the debate that all of the $300,000 was given before Abbott's office ruled on payday lending. There's a lot of background to state actions involving payday lenders. In 1999, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, Abbott's predecessor, filed lawsuits against selected payday lenders, claiming the companies were evading state laws regulating interest rates. Separately, a usury provision in the Texas Constitution caps interest rates on short-term loans from unlicensed lenders at 10 percent. Cornyn, stating that lenders were getting away with interest rates of up to 1,000 percent, said: "This kind of abusive payday lending is illegal in Texas, and those companies who continue this practice will face serious consequences." An October 2000 report by the Sunset Advisory Commission found that in recent years, different types of lending businesses had attempted to evade regulation, including payday lenders. It recommended that the Legislature authorize the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner to regulate payday loans to help control unlawful interest rates. In 2001, state lawmakers agreed to changes in the law bringing payday lending under the office's regulation and directing the Texas Finance Commission to adopt rules guiding the industry. According to a May 2001 bill analysis by the House Research Organization, the requested rules would prohibit a lender from using a device, pretense, or subterfuge to avoid regulation of the lender's transactions, including by recharacterizing fees on a loan as a purchase of a good or service. Resulting additions to Texas law included a chart specifying acceptable fees for payday loans of various dollar amounts and durations. However, in subsequent years, according to Austin American-Statesman news reports, Texas payday lenders found a way around the law by partnering with out-of-state banks, which financed payday loans beyond the reach of Texas laws. State and national legislators then raised concerns about payday lenders dodging the restrictions; the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation cracked down in 2005, limiting the number of payday loans a bank could issue and constricting the profitability of partnerships between payday lenders and banks. That's when Texas payday lenders, under pressure from regulation, started transitioning to a new business model called a credit service organization (CSO). In January 2006, the Statesman reported that Texas payday lenders abandoned partnerships with FDIC-regulated banks and began working with third-party unregistered lenders. It also noted that Texas payday lenders received a boost from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in the form of a letter affirming the legality of the CSO model. Between 2004 and 2014, payday lender storefronts increased more than tenfold in Texas, the El Paso Times reported on Feb. 4, 2014. Next, we looked at the Abbott ruling referenced by Davis. It turned out to be an aide's legal analysis. In 2005, the attorney general's office, headed by Abbott, received two requests to review the legality of payday-lender CSOs, agency spokesman Jerry Strickland said by email, one being an August 2005 verbal request from the consumer credit commissioner, who inquired after a court case raised questions about whether the state had any authority over CSOs. In Lovick v. Ritemoney Ltd., the plaintiff accused payday lender Ritemoney Ltd. of disguising illegal interest fees as service charges. A state district judge, Rhesa Hawkins Barksdale, wrote that Texas law does not construe such credit service fees as disguised interest, and the complaint was dismissed. Strickland said the other request for Abbott's judgment came in writing on Sept. 8, 2005, from then-state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso. Shapleigh wrote that as a CSO, a payday lending company evades both federal guidelines restricting payday loans and the interest-rate limits established by the Texas Finance Commission. As the state's leading enforcement agency, it is imperative that your office investigate this new business model and take necessary enforcement actions against businesses purposefully and illegally skirting Texas laws. On Jan. 12, 2006, Barry McBee, the state's first assistant attorney general, signed a letter responding to the commissioner, Leslie Pettijohn, stating that there was nothing patently illegal about payday lender CSOs under state law and that there was no statutory limit to the fees they could charge. McBee's letter pointed out that, in keeping with state law, payday lender CSOs were charging the maximum-permitted 10 percent interest on loans plus service fees to arrange the loan between a borrower and a third-party lender. He wrote that, according to Chapter 393 of the Texas Finance Code, there is no limit on the amount of fees a CSO can charge in such transactions. Any discussion of whether the use of this model is the best public policy choice for the State of Texas, McBee wrote, is one that must be addressed by the Legislature and has not been explored by this office. In the 2013 legislative session, lawmakers debated reforming payday lending practices, but attempts stalled. By phone, Don Baylor, a former senior policy analyst for the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs serving low-income Texans, said that after the Lovick v. Ritemoney ruling, payday lenders remained uncertain if they could legally operate as CSOs. However, Baylor said it is fair to say the OAG letter provided enough regulatory certainty for the entire payday lending industry to adopt the CSO model. He also noted that after the Lovick ruling, the attorney general did not have the authority to prohibit loans from being made under the CSO model. He attributed the explosion of payday lender CSOs to ambiguous wording in the 1987 Credit Services Organization Act, which was written to help Texans improve credit scores and not with payday lenders in mind. "Payday lenders found the CSO costume and dressed up in the costume," said Baylor. "It's a very creative way they came up with to get around the constitutional usury limits." Davis stated that payday lenders gave Abbott $300,000 in campaign donations and then received a ruling from him that allowed them to operate in a loophole in the law permitting them to charge unlimited rates and fees. This statement references a 2006 legal analysis—not a ruling—from a top state aide to Abbott that aligned with a court ruling permitting payday lenders to charge unlimited fees despite state caps on related interest. Clarification is needed in that only 5 percent of the described $300,000 in donations occurred before the analysis was issued. Regardless, Abbott's office reaffirmed a way for politically supportive payday lenders to exploit Texas borrowers. We rate this statement Mostly True.

['Campaign Finance', 'Financial Regulation', 'Texas']

True

Responding to a reporter at the Sept. 30, 2014,gubernatorial debatein Dallas, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee and Fort Worth state senator accused Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, her Republicanfoe, of selling out Texans to serve the interests of people who make donations to his campaign.After Davis proclaimed link between Abbotts campaign donations and official action wasdescribedby theEl Paso Timesin January 2014, we foundHalf Trueher statement that Texas payday lenderswere charging 1,000 percent interest. In rare instances, lenders charged 1,000 percent annual interest, but payday loan rates then averaged 465 percent.To our inquiry about the $300,000 described as given to Abbott, Davis campaign spokesman Zac Petkanas emailed usrecordsof Abbott campaign contributionsas filed in campaign reports atthe Texas Ethics Commission covering Sept. 16, 2002 nearly through July 2014.In 1999, then-Texas Attorney General John Cornyn, Abbotts predecessor,filed lawsuitsagainst selected payday lenders, saying the companies were dodging state laws regulating interest rates. Separately, ausury provisionin the Texas Constitution caps interest rates on short-term loans from unlicensed lenders at 10 percent.Cornyn,saying lenders were getting away with interest rates of up to 1,000 percent, said: This kind of abusive payday lending is illegal in Texas, and those companies who continue this practice will face serious consequences.An October2000 reportby the Sunset Advisory Commission found that in recent years, different types of lending businesses have attempted to evade regulation including payday lenders. It recommended the Legislature authorize the Office of Consumer Credit Commissioner to regulate payday loans in order to help control unlawful interest rates.In 2001, state lawmakers agreed tochanges in lawbringing payday lending under the offices regulation and directing the Texas Finance Commission to adoptrulesguiding the industry. According to a May 2001bill analysisby the House Research Organization, the requested rules would prohibit a lender from using a device, pretense, or subterfuge to avoid regulation of the lenders transactions, including by recharacterizing fees on a loan as a purchase of a good or service.Resulting additions to Texas law includea chartspecifying acceptable fees for payday loans of various dollar amounts and durations.State and national legislators then raised concerns about payday lenders dodging the restrictions; the Federal Deposit and Insurance Corporation cracked down in 2005,limiting the numberof payday loans a bank could issue and constricting the profitability of partnerships between payday lenders and banks.Thats when Texas payday lenders, under pressure from regulation, started transitioning to a new business model, called acredit service organization(CSO) in summer 2005, theStatesmanreported In January 2006. Its news story said Texas payday lenders ditched partnerships with FDIC-regulated banks and began working with third-party unregistered lenders. It also said Texas payday lenders got a boost recently from Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott in the form of a letter affirming the legality of the CSO model.Between 2004 and 2014, payday lender storefronts increased more than tenfold in Texas, theEl Paso TimesreportedFeb. 4, 2014.Strickland said the other request for Abbotts judgment camein writingSept. 8, 2005 from then-state Sen. Eliot Shapleigh, D-El Paso. Shapleigh wrote that as a CSO, a payday lending company dodges both federal guidelines restricting payday loans and the interest-rate limits established by the Texas Finance Commission. As the states leading enforcement agency, it is imperative that your office investigate this new business model and take necessary enforcement actions against businesses purposefully and illegally skirting Texas laws.On Jan. 12, 2006, Barry McBee, the states first assistant attorney general,signed a letterresponding to the commissioner, Leslie Pettijohn, saying there was nothing patently illegal about payday lender CSOs under state lawand there was no statutory limit to the fees they could charge.McBees letter pointed out that, in keeping with state law, payday lender CSOs were charging the maximum-permitted 10 percent interest on loans plus service fees to arrange the loan between a borrower and third-party lender. He wrote that, according toChapter 393 of the Texas Finance Code, there is not any limit on the amount of fees a CSO can charge in such transactions.In the 2013 legislative session, lawmakersdebatedreformingpayday lending practices, but attemptsstalled.He credited the explosion of payday lender CSOs to ambiguous wording in the 1987Credit Services Organization Act, which was written to help Texans improve credit scores and not with payday lenders in mind, he said. Payday lenders found the CSO costume and dressed up in the costume, said Baylor. Its a very creative way they came up with to get around the constitutional usury limits.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Did WEF Participant Shout Profanities at Klaus Schwab During 2024 Davos Meeting?

[' New WEF participant does the unthinkable according to a post on X.']

In mid-January 2024, a viral video purportedly showed a participant at the 2024 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, saying [expletive] you onstage to WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab. video The participant appears to stare down Schwab while standing on stage and adds, [expletive] your new world order. We the people were born free, we will stay free, and you and all of your globalist friends including everyone in this room can go [expletive] yourselves. The video was also uploaded to YouTube: It appeared to originate from Damon Imani, a content creator, on Jan. 16, 2024, as it had his name as a watermark on the top left. (@damonimani/X) Many online users reposted the video, including this post in French with the caption: A guest like no other, Damon Imani on stage at #WEF in Davos. reposted this post Some people appeared to think the video was authentic. It is a work of satire, however, as pointed out by Imani, the original creator and the man in the video. In a post below the original video, he wrote, Satire but true. This video is also available on Rumble here and Klaus Schwab can go f himself. Based on that statement, and the lack of any evidence at all confirming the incident happened, we rate this claim as Labeled Satire. creator According to his website (emphasis, ours): Damon Imani is an Iranian producer and artist based in Denmark, who creates video content related to various topics, including societal issues, news, and current events. Known for his satirical approach, Imani draws attention to societal and political issues through his work. With the tense political climate of the world in the 2016-20 era, Imani's content gained traction from social media users from both sides, as well as public figures such as Donald Trump, Joe Rogan, Alex Jones, Elon Musk, and many other influential figures. His work has also been featured in major media outlets such as USA Today, InfoWars, The Associated Press, BPR Politics And Business, and many more. It is also obvious from the contrast in lighting on Imani's face compared with the lighting on Schwab that Imani edited himself onto the WEF stage. Posting on X after his video gained more attention, Imani complained about the language of the community note being placed under his original video, writing, I've requested additional review. Even the language of this CN is laughable; 1. It links to my own notice. Duh! 2. Makes opinion based argument that I can't use "breaking" for something that's not breaking. This is a straightforward hijack of Community Notes to demonetize a very smart immigrant. writing This is not the first time we have fact checked false claims involving Schwab. The WEF, as we have reported in the past, is an influential, international, non-governmental organization known for fostering private-public partnerships around economy, international development, and more. The organization, which Schwab founded in 1971, is the target of many conspiracy theories surrounding its real-life ties to elite networks that online rumor-mongers believe are nefariously planning to create totalitarian regimes. first time reported influential founded conspiracy For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor. why Ibrahim, Nur. Did WEF Say Humans Will All Wear a Uniform By 2030? Snopes, 7 July 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-fashion-humans-uniforms/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Imani, Damon. New? Start Here! Damon Imani, 15 Oct. 2018, https://damonimani.com/about.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. Kasprak, Alex. Was World Economic Forum Vice Chairman Aboard the Collapsed Titan Submersible? Snopes, 23 June 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-titan-submersible/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. LaMagdeleine, Izz Scott. No, the World Economic Forum Hasnt Ordered Governments to Legalize Marriage With Animals. Snopes, 7 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wef-legalize-marriage-animals/.Accessed 17 Jan. 2024. "World Economic Forum Archives." Snopes. https://www.snopes.com/tag/world-economic-forum/. Accessed 17 Jan. 2024.

['economy']

False

In mid-January 2024, a viral video purportedly showed a participant at the 2024 World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos, Switzerland, saying [expletive] you onstage to WEF Chairman Klaus Schwab.Many online users reposted the video, including this post in French with the caption: A guest like no other, Damon Imani on stage at #WEF in Davos.Some people appeared to think the video was authentic. It is a work of satire, however, as pointed out by Imani, the original creator and the man in the video. In a post below the original video, he wrote, Satire but true. This video is also available on Rumble here and Klaus Schwab can go f himself. Based on that statement, and the lack of any evidence at all confirming the incident happened, we rate this claim as Labeled Satire.Posting on X after his video gained more attention, Imani complained about the language of the community note being placed under his original video, writing, I've requested additional review. Even the language of this CN is laughable; 1. It links to my own notice. Duh! 2. Makes opinion based argument that I can't use "breaking" for something that's not breaking. This is a straightforward hijack of Community Notes to demonetize a very smart immigrant.This is not the first time we have fact checked false claims involving Schwab. The WEF, as we have reported in the past, is an influential, international, non-governmental organization known for fostering private-public partnerships around economy, international development, and more. The organization, which Schwab founded in 1971, is the target of many conspiracy theories surrounding its real-life ties to elite networks that online rumor-mongers believe are nefariously planning to create totalitarian regimes.For background, here is why we sometimes write about satire/humor.

Does the term 'Bar' in the 'Bar Exam' imply a covert collusion among lawyers?

['A "sovereign citizen" conspiracy theory about the licensing of lawyers is riddled with bad logic and historical inaccuracies.']

One of the more unusual and complicated theories associated with the sovereign citizen and tax protester movements is the belief that lawyers who are members of bar associations in the United States are, in fact, agents of the British crown and do not have legitimate status in American courts. This theory is partly informed by a false but widely repeated claim that the word "bar" in this context is an acronym for "British Accreditation Register": Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade: essay During the middle 1600's, the Crown of England established a formal registry in London where barristers [lawyers] were ordered by the Crown to be accredited. The establishment of this first International Bar Association allowed barrister-lawyers from all nations to be formally recognized and accredited by the only recognized accreditation society. From this, the acronym BAR was established denoting (informally) the British Accredited Registry, whose members became a powerful and integral force within the International Bar Association (IBA). Although this has been denied repeatedly as to its existence, the acronym BAR stood for the British barrister-lawyers who were members of the larger IBA. Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history. 1947 A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales). book accreditation England and Wales Acts of Union But more broadly, this theory offers a confused summary of the history of "the bar." In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit. established metonymic So someone who has been "called to the bar" has been given the right to advocate before a judge and is thereby known as a "barrister." A "bar association" is, roughly speaking, a professional association for lawyers, akin to a guild. In some jurisdictions, bar associations are limited to barristers (as opposed to solicitors, a different type of lawyer); whereas in others, they are open to all members of the legal profession. In some jurisdictions a bar association is the body that licenses and regulates legal professionals, and in others it is merely a professional association. The "BAR" conspiracy theory essay goes on to say: When America was still a chartered group of British colonies under patent established in what was formally named the British Crown territory of New England the first British Accredited Registry (BAR) was established in Boston during 1761 to attempt to allow only accredited barrister-lawyers access to the British courts of New England. This was the first attempt to control who could represent defendants in the court at or within the bar in America. Today, each corporate STATE in America has it's [sic] own BAR Association, i.e. The Florida Bar or the California Bar, that licenses government officer attorneys, NOT lawyers. In reality, the U.S. courts only allow their officer attorneys to freely enter within the bar while prohibiting those learned of the law lawyers to do so. They prevent advocates, lawyers, counselors, barristers and solicitors from entering through the outer bar. Only licensed BAR Attorneys are permitted to freely enter within the bar separating the people from the bench because all BAR Attorneys are officers of the court itself. Does that tell you anything? A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers. page 393 Many of these claims are based on the etymology of certain words, rather than their modern meaning. For example, the author of the essay referenced above presents the origins of the word "attorney," citing Webster's 1828 dictionary definition, as: "In the feudal law, to turn, or transfer homage and service from one lord to another." That essay also proclaims: Here's where the whole word game gets really tricky. In each State, every licensed BAR Attorney calls himself an Attorney at Law. Look at the definitions above and see for yourself that an Attorney at Law is nothing more than an attorney one who transfers allegiance and property to the ruling land owner. That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer." defines This fixation on word origins leads to something like a game of Telephone in the logic of the conspiracy theory, with false conclusions being drawn from inaccurate or incomplete premises. Here are more examples, summarized from the essay: The historical origins of the word "esquire" did have to do with the transfer of property between feudal land-owners, but that was hundreds of years ago. This argument is roughly analogous to claiming that because the title "Ph.D" derives from the Latin "philosophiae doctor" ("doctor of philosophy"), microbiologists with Ph.D at the end of their names have no legal right to conduct scientific research because they are actually philosophers and not scientists. "A BAR [British Accredited Registry] licensed Attorney is not an advocate," the theory goes on to falsely claim, "so how can he do anything other than what his real purpose is?": He can't plead on your behalf because that would be a conflict of interest. He can't represent the crown (ruling government) as an official officer at the same time he is allegedly representing a defendant. His sworn duty as a BAR Attorney is to transfer your ownership, rights, titles, and allegiance to the land owner. When you hire a BAR Attorney to represent you in their courts, you have hired an officer of that court whose sole purpose and occupation is to transfer what you have to the creator and authority of that court. It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..." 2001 barred sentence proceedings In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018. charged ongoing Warren, Charles. "A History of the American Bar." Little, Brown and Company, 1911. U.K. Parliament. "Act of Union 1707." U.K. Parliament. Unknown publication date. Wickser, Philip J. "Bar Associations." Cornell Law Review (Vol. 15.3, April 1930). Babcock, Chief Judge Lewis T. "Permanent Injunction Order, U.S.A v. Austin Gary Cooper et al." U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado. 20 November 2003. Morlin, Bill. "Ten Sovereign Citizens Face 320 Felonies in Tennessee." Southern Poverty Law Center. 28 March 2017.

['income']

False

Here's how the elaborate and confusing theory is outlined in an anonymously-authored essay called "Hiding Behind the Bar," which has been republished and shared in tax protester and sovereign citizen circles for more than a decade:Almost every part of this is factually inaccurate. For one thing, the International Bar Association was founded in 1947, not in the 1600s. Second, we could find no evidence of the existence of a professional association for lawyers called the "British Accredited Registry," either in 2018 or at any previous time in history.A History of the American Bar, a 1911 book by the Pulitzer Prize-winning legal scholar Charles Warren, contains no mention of any "British Accredited Registry" or "British Accreditation Registry" (with "accredited" and "accreditation" being used variously in different versions of this conspiracy theory). It would also make little sense for a group of lawyers in 17th century England to form a group describing itself as "British." Great Britain (composed of England, Wales and Scotland) does not have, and has never had, a unified courts system, instead being separated into two systems: England and Wales and Scotland. In fact, Great Britain itself was not even formally created until 1707, when the Acts of Union joined the Kingdom of Scotland with the Kingdom of England (which included Wales).In the Middle Ages, lawyers in London established four "Inns of Court": Lincoln's Inn, the Inner Temple, the Middle Temple, and Gray's Inn. These were physical buildings but, more figuratively, they were also the professional associations for lawyers working in the more important English courts. A "barrister" was a legal expert or advocate who has been "called to the bar." This is a metonymic phrase which is rooted in the physical barrier that was present in a courtroom, to separate fully qualified lawyers entitled to plead cases before a judge from (roughly speaking) trainee lawyers and members of the public. In modern times, this physical barrier generally separates participants in a trial (such as lawyers, clerks, defendants, the jury, and the judge) from the gallery in which members of the public and the news media sit.A 1930 essay published in the Cornell Law Review (page 393) refers to a bar association's having been established in Boston in 1761, but remember that a bar association is no more than a kind of guild for lawyers. "Bar" is not an acronym for "British Accredited Registry," because that acronym is a fabrication. As with many sovereign citizen theories, the essay builds on the shaky foundations of an inaccurate account of the history of bar associations in the United States and draws confused conclusions about the function and legal status of lawyers.That passage is false. Whatever the older origins of the word "attorney" might be, the modern definition of that word is much broader. Merriam-Webster defines an attorney as simply "one who is legally appointed to transact business on another's behalf." In common American parlance, "attorney" is used interchangeably with "lawyer."It's not clear what the origins of the the fabricated acronym are, but "British Accredited Registry" was invoked as early as 2001 by Austin Gary Cooper, a long-time "sovereign citizen" activist. In 2003, a U.S. District Court in Colorado barred Cooper and his wife Martha Cooper from selling advice on how to avoid paying federal income tax after the couple set up groups called "Taking Back America" and the "Ten Foundation," which advised their paying customers that they could renounce their United States citizenship, call themselves "American citizens" instead, and escape their tax obligations. In 2006, Cooper was given a six-month prison sentence for criminal contempt after failing to comply with that court order, which obliged him to hand over the names of his customers, among other requirements. During court proceedings, Cooper accused the judge of treason and called him a "Nazi bastard" and a "British Accredited Registry" lawyer, saying: "You people are going to destroy our country. British accredited registry bar association, you're going to destroy our country ..."In 2017, prosecutors in Tennessee charged Cooper, who is now 69 years old, with 10 counts of forgery and filing a fraudulent lien. The case was ongoing as of January 2018.

Katie Kirkpatrick

['Photographs show Katie Kirkpatrick, a young cancer victim who passed away five days after her wedding?']

The girl in the picture is Katie Kirkpatrick, she is 21. Next to her, her fianc, Nick, 23. The picture was taken shortly before their wedding ceremony, held on January 11, 2005 in the US. Katie has terminal cancer and spend hours a day receiving medication. In the picture, Nick is waiting for her on one of the many sessions of Chemo to end. In spite of all the pain, organ failures, and morphine shots, Katie is going along with her wedding and took care of every detail. The dress had to be adjusted a few times due to her constant weight loss. An unusual accessory at the wedding was the oxygen tube that Katie used throughout the ceremony and reception as well. The other couple in the picture are Nick's parents. Excited to see there son marrying his high school sweetheart. Katie, in her wheelchair with the oxygen tube, listening a song from her husband and friends At the reception, Katie had to take a few rest breaks. The pain wouldn't allow her to stand up for long periods. Katie died five days after her wedding day. Watching a women so ill and weak getting married and with a smile on her face makes us think..... Happiness is reachable, no matter how long it last. We should stop making our lives complicated. Origins: On Valentine's Day 2002, Katie Kirkpatrick, then a freshman at Rochester College (a small Christian college in Rochester Hills, Michigan) was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Undaunted, Katie strove to keep up with her studies, but she suffered another setback in 2003 when she was diagnosed with "an inoperable lung tumor wrapped around her pulmonary artery." Nonetheless, in 2004 the resilient Katie took part in champion cyclist Lance Armstrong's "Ride for the Roses" cancer fundraiser: fundraiser Dr. Craig Bowman of the Bible faculty spearheaded a campus and area-wide effort that raised $28,000 which made one of Katie's dreams come true: riding with six-time Tour de France winner and fellow cancer survivor Lance Armstrong in his Ride for the Roses cancer fundraiser. Says Katie of Armstrong, "I like his attitude and his perseverance. I admire him for the way he dealt with his cancer, and his attitude: 'You know what, this isn't going to beat me!'" On 15 January 2005, 21-year-old Katie the girl "with a contagious smile and unrelenting optimism" who had been battling cancer for three years married Lapeer County sheriff's deputy Nick Godwin, her high school sweetheart and the love of her life, at Church of Christ in Hazel Park, Michigan. Katie Kirkpatrick Godwin passed away at the McLaren Regional Medical Center in Flint, Michigan, on 20 January 2005, just five days after her wedding. Her husband, Nick, said of the wedding and Katie's passing: "It was wonderful. It was a dream come true. She was the most beautiful angel ever just caring and selfless, and such an inspiration to everyone. She was always smiling no matter what happened, no matter what news she got. She was as close to perfect as they come." She did not let sickness stop her from living, take away the hope or faith that made her believe she had a future. She had a lovely wedding and she had love and she gave love and love doesn't die. And that is how Katie beat cancer. Additional photographs of Katie and her wedding can be viewed on the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) web site. NPPA Katie's Spa in Lapeer, Michigan (a business which specializes in services to cancer patients), is named in Katie's memory, as is Katie's Wings, a non-profit organization established to help bring assistance to people affected by cancer. Katie's Wings Sadly, the event that likely prompted circulation of this item in March 2009 was the death of Katie's father, David B. Kirkpatrick, who passed away that month after his own battle with cancer. Last updated: 2 April 2009 Morrison, Kara G. "Wedding Blessed Bride's Final Days." The Detroit News. 23 January 2005. Reiz, Rose Mary. "Spa Is Legacy of Lapeer East Grad." The Flint Journal. 9 September 2007. Tunnicliff, Greg and Bryn Mickle . "David 'KP' Kirkpatrick Was Dedicated to Family and Students." The Flint Journal. 20 March 2009.

['profit']

True

Origins: On Valentine's Day 2002, Katie Kirkpatrick, then a freshman at Rochester College (a small Christian college in Rochester Hills, Michigan) was diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor. Undaunted, Katie strove to keep up with her studies, but she suffered another setback in 2003 when she was diagnosed with "an inoperable lung tumor wrapped around her pulmonary artery." Nonetheless, in 2004 the resilient Katie took part in champion cyclist Lance Armstrong's "Ride for the Roses" cancer fundraiser:Additional photographs of Katie and her wedding can be viewed on the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) web site.Katie's Spa in Lapeer, Michigan (a business which specializes in services to cancer patients), is named in Katie's memory, as is Katie's Wings, a non-profit organization established to help bring assistance to people affected by cancer.

When colleges and universities are added, education spending is the biggest item in the state budget about 52 percent of all state dollars.

[]

After Dan Patrick popped a statistic to back his contention that Texas state government spends plenty on education, a reader asked us to check the Republican lieutenant governors accuracy. Patrick, in a June 2017commentary, extolled the state budget then about to besigned into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, specifying: Texas spends $60 billion on schools in our two-year budget, including both federal and state funds. Of that, $41 billion is state funding. That is on top of the estimated $28 billion to $30 billion annually paid by local property taxpayers. When colleges and universities are added, Patrick said, education spending is the biggest item in the state budget about 52 percent of all state dollars. Health care is second, accounting for most of the remaining dollars. It is disingenuous to suggest that we are, somehow, holding back funding that we could spend on schools. Our review of budget documents posted by the Legislative Budget Board led us to find Patricks figure solid though the percentage also proved historic in a low-end way not stated by Patrick. Patrick cites state budget summary Up front, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia responded by email to our inquiry about the basis of Patricks 52 percent by pointing out a chart in the2018-19 state budget, which takes effect Sept. 1, 2017. The chart shows that the budget puts $55.9 billion in general revenue toward public and higher education out of $106.7 billion in all such revenue which breaks out to 52.4 percent of such spending. Next highest: Nearly $34 billion budgeted for health and human services accounts for 31 percent of state spending in the budget. SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017) Some context: The chart shows that the nearly $41 billion in public school aid appropriated by the 2017 Legislature trailed $635.6 million, or 1.5 percent, behind what lawmakers budgeted for public schools the previous two years. On the other hand, the new budget increases state spending on higher education by $195.2 million, 1.1 percent, from the 2016-17 budget, according to the chart. We asked the Legislative Budget Board about Patricks percentage. By email, staff spokesman R.J. DeSilva responded by pointing out the same chart offered by Patrick. Separately to our emailed inquiries, Austin school-finance expert Joe Wisnoski, who works for a firm that represents school districts, and Tom Canby of the Texas Association of School Business Officials didnt quibble with Patricks calculation. Wisnoski added, though, that the 52 percent conclusion may not be the whole story. He alsopointed outthat from all funding sources--including federal aid--lawmakers devoted $80 billion to education, which represented 37 percent of the full $217 billion state budget. Alternate calculation For our part, we noticed one other way of gauging the share of state revenue budgeted for education. Another chart in the budget shows that lawmakers budgeted nearly $58.8 billion for public schools and higher education in state general revenue plus the smaller pot of money consisting of state revenue dedicated to particular expenditures. The combined amount, we found, also breaks out to 52 percent of the full budgets $113.1 billion in state revenue and dedicated state revenue: SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017) Other state funds? When we asked about Patrick's claim, Dominic Giarratani of the Texas Association of School Boards agreed its fair to focus on state general revenue to evaluate budgeted spending on education. By email, though, he also provided a calculation suggesting that public plus higher education accounts for 48 percent of non-federal spending in the budget. Thats correct, it looked to us, though its worth noting the additional spending captured by this alternate analysis folds in chunks of money not easily controlled by lawmakers--including $1.8 billion of earnings on the endowment that benefits institutions in the University of Texas and Texas A&M University systems; nearly $4.6 billion in local tax revenue projected to be provided by property-rich school districts, including the Austin district, to support the states school finance system; and nearly $3.6 billion in payments driven by a 2006 state-mandated reduction in school property taxes. Historic low? Next, we wondered how the 52 percent cited by Patrick for 2018-19 compares to the share of state GR devoted to education in previous budgets. To get a fix on that, we checked spending on education from non-dedicated GR in the previous 10 budgets. Such funds comprise the bulk of each budget and are most directly controlled by legislative decisions. Our finding: In the budgets, which encompass 20 years, no Legislature devoted less than 53 percent of general revenue to education. On average, educations share of state spending through the budgets was 58 percent. State Revenue Budgeted for Education, Texas, 1998-99 through 2018-19 (By Percentage) BUDGET YEARS SHARE OF REVENUE* BUDGETED FOR PUBLIC AND HIGHER EDUCATION 1998-99 61 % 2000-01 63 2002-03 59 2004-05 59 2006-07 56 2008-09 59 2010-11 61 2012-13 57 2014-15 53 2016-17 53 2018-19 52 *State general revenue, excluding revenue constitutionally dedicated to particular purposes. SOURCE: PolitiFact Texas calculations drawing on state budgets adopted by Texas Legislature, 1997-2017as posted bythe Legislative Budget Board (accessed June 14-15, 2017) Our ruling Patrick, saying its disingenuous to suggest lawmakers held back on education aid, said 52 percent of state spending in the 2018-19 state budget was appropriated to public plus higher education. Thats an accurate percentage. Unclarified: Education also accounts for the smallest share of budgeted state spending in at least 20 years, which is as far back as we checked. We rate the statement 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

Patrick, in a June 2017commentary, extolled the state budget then about to besigned into law by Gov. Greg Abbott, specifying: Texas spends $60 billion on schools in our two-year budget, including both federal and state funds. Of that, $41 billion is state funding. That is on top of the estimated $28 billion to $30 billion annually paid by local property taxpayers.Up front, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia responded by email to our inquiry about the basis of Patricks 52 percent by pointing out a chart in the2018-19 state budget, which takes effect Sept. 1, 2017. The chart shows that the budget puts $55.9 billion in general revenue toward public and higher education out of $106.7 billion in all such revenue which breaks out to 52.4 percent of such spending. Next highest: Nearly $34 billion budgeted for health and human services accounts for 31 percent of state spending in the budget.SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017)Wisnoski added, though, that the 52 percent conclusion may not be the whole story. He alsopointed outthat from all funding sources--including federal aid--lawmakers devoted $80 billion to education, which represented 37 percent of the full $217 billion state budget.SOURCE: Document,Summary of Conference Committee Report for Senate Bill 1, Appropriations for the 2018-19 Biennium,Legislative Budget Board, May 2017 (accessed June 14, 2017)SOURCE: PolitiFact Texas calculations drawing on state budgets adopted by Texas Legislature, 1997-2017as posted bythe Legislative Budget Board (accessed June 14-15, 2017)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.

Valuable U.S. Coins Placed into Circulation

['Were three valuable U.S. coins deliberately placed into circulation in New York in April 2006?']

Claim: A collector deliberately placed three valuable U.S. coins into circulation in New York in April 2006. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2006] A friend told me that she heard that a millionnaire put a penny worth a million dollars in circulation by using it to buy a hot dog at a vendor cart. Supposedly you can tell because it has a "J" under the year. Origins: One of the many windfall schemes that some of us dream about in our idle moments is fortuitously turning up a rare old coin worth hundreds or even thousands of dollars perhaps through discovering one stashed away by a relative who has forgotten about it, uncovering one hidden beneath some dirt or debris, or simply finding one in a handful of change. The last of these routes rarely yields lucky finds anymore, as collectors and treasure-seekers have long since plucked every coin of significant value from circulation, but in April 2006 the odds of making such an advantageous discovery got a little bit better. To help introduce more people to "the magic of coin collecting," Scott A. Travers, a 44-year-old former vice president of the American Numismatic Association and author of The Coin Collector's Survival Manual, decided to mark National Coin Week in mid-April 2006 by deliberately spending three valuable old pennies as he made routine purchases around Manhattan. "I'm planting a seed, and I hope that a new generation of people will come to appreciate the history that coins represent," he said. The three coins Scott Travers spent were all relatively low-mintage U.S. one-cent pieces nearly one hundred years old: a 1908-S Indian Head cent, and 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincoln cents. (In the conditions released by Travers, at the time those coins were worth roughly $200, $1,000, and $300, respectively.) Mr. Travers said he put the 1908-S 1909-S VDB 1914-D 1914-D Lincoln cent into circulation on 12 April 2006 when he purchased a pretzel from a food stand outside the NASDAQ offices in Times Square, and a few days later he spent the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent to buy a bottle of water from a different vendor in Times Square, then walked a block to a newsstand where he used the 1908-S Indian Head cent. Within a few weeks, seven people came forward saying they had found the $1,000 coin (i.e., the 1909-S V.D.B. Lincoln cent), but Travers said that although the proffered coins were real, none of them was the one he released into circulation. As of 2009 there had been no reports of anyone's finding any of the three rare pennies, but Scott Travers may never find out what happened to them, as it's quite possible the valuable cents ended up lost, squirreled away as oddities by people who didn't know their true value, or retrieved and sold by lucky finders unaware the coins were deliberately placed into circulation. Indeed, Mr. Travers has tried the same stunt more than once, and he hasn't ever learned the fate of some of the valuable coins involved in those previous attempts: Travers has spent rare coins before. In 1999, he did it to coincide with the numismatic association's convention in New York, although he never found out whether one of the rare pennies was rediscovered. Past coin drops, in 1997 and 2002, succeeded in sparking interest in coin collecting, but Travers doesn't know if anyone "cashed in" by finding the coins. Travers has met many people who believe they've discovered his coins, and though they may have found valuable coins, they weren't his. Last updated: 17 March 2011 Healey, Matthew. "Find a Penny, Pick It Up, Sell It for 1,000 Bucks." The New York Times. 14 April 2006 (p. B3). Schapiro, Rich. "Coins in Circulation May Be Worth Up to $1,000, Says Expert." [New York] Daily News. 9 January 2009.

['interest']

True

The three coins Scott Travers spent were all relatively low-mintage U.S. one-cent pieces nearly one hundred years old: a 1908-S Indian Head cent, and 1909-S VDB and 1914-D Lincoln cents. (In the conditions released by Travers, at the time those coins were worth roughly $200, $1,000, and $300, respectively.) Mr. Travers said he put the

Wisconsin has one of the most progressive tax codes in the country.

[]

The author of a Wisconsin income tax overhaul sees the flat tax in the Flatland to the south as a beacon for Republicans trying to ease the Badger States heavy tax burden on the middle class. We have a long ways to go in Wisconsin, state Rep. Dale Kooyenga, R-Brookfield,told reporters.Everyone in Illinois pays 5 percent. Illinois millionaires pay less of a rate in taxes than Wisconsins lower income, middle-class families. Researchers deem Illinois personal income tax structure regressive because a uniform tax rate ultimately takes a bigger bite from lower incomes than higher ones. Wisconsin pioneered the opposite approach, a progressive system in which tax rates rise with earnings. Kooyenga argues change is long overdue. Wisconsin was the first state to enact an income tax in 1911, he wrote in a May 27, 2013postingon the conservative Right Wisconsin website. The complexity of the Wisconsin tax code has exponentially grown as Madison politicians believed the tax code was their magic wand which could be used to accomplish political and social objectives. His conclusion: As a direct result, our tax code picks winners and losers and is one of the most progressive tax codes in the country. Kooyengas plan reduces rates and collapses several tax brackets. It comes on top of Gov. Scott Walkers tax-cut proposal. Combined they reduce taxes by nearly $790 million over two years. Top earners would likely receive the majority of the $444 million in tax savings under Kooyengas plan, and those with modest incomes would land in the same tax bracket as very high earners, theJournal Sentinel reported.Kooyenga acknowledges that, but says everyone deserves tax relief and that the top 10 percent right now pay over 50 percent of the tax revenue in Wisconsin. But Kooyengas claim wasnt about the impact of his plan. Rather it was about the tax system as it stands today. Does Wisconsin have one of the most progressive tax codes in the country? The rankings Kooyengas plan focuses on the personal income tax, so well confine our analysis to that rather than all taxes in the code. We found two 50-state studies comparing income tax burdens by income level, and Kooyenga cited the same research when we asked him for backup. AMarch 2013 studyof 2010 tax data by the non-partisanMinnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, a research organization, concluded that: -- Among 42 states with an income tax (and the District of Columbia), Wisconsin is the 9th most-progressive when comparing married couples with $10,000 of gross income to those with incomes of $150,000, $250,000, $500,000 and $1 million. -- Wisconsins ranking drops lower, in a range from 11th to 15th most progressive, when comparing a couple earning $35,000 to each of those four higher levels. The ranks were 11, 12, 15 and 15. Minnesota came in number 2. The second study cited by Kooyenga is aJanuary 2013 examinationby the nonpartisan, liberalInstitute on Taxation and Economic Policy(ITEP) in Washington, D.C. (The group is a partner organization to Citizens for Tax Justice, which hascriticized the Walker and Kooyenga tax cutsas costly and regressive. Also, on May 30, 2013, ITEP released areview of Kooyengas plan, concluding that the top 20 percent of earners, a group with an average income of $183,000, would receive more than two-thirds of the benefit.) In any event, the groups earlier 50-state study -- the one cited by Kooyenga to back up his claim -- found that Wisconsins income tax was the 12th most progressive in the nation. That ranking is not revealed in the report, which deals with a broader variety of state and local taxes, but the group made it available to us from its unpublished database. So, the two studies rank the income tax here in a range from 9th to 15th most progressive. That puts Wisconsin among the top 21 to 36 percent of most progressive income tax states, depending on the comparison point and the study. Of course, thats just among the states that levy a personal income tax -- the tax that is the main way to add a progressive element to a tax system. Four states that dont levy a personal income tax are on the ITEPs top-10 most regressive list for their overall tax systems, so its safe to say Wisconsins income tax approach is more progressive than in those additional states that dont even use this progressive tool. Of the two studies, the ITEP research is more up to date, but is limited to non-elderly taxpayers. It, unlike the Minnesota study, accounted for the effect of reductions that Walker initiated in 2011 in the earned income tax credit for low-income workers, a cut of 19 percent, or $56 million over two years. That change made the income tax less progressive, but we dont know how it affected Wisconsins ranking vs. other states, some of whom made similar changes. Digging deeper From the ITEP study, Kooyenga highlighted tables showing that Wisconsins top 20 percent of earners pay an effective income tax rate considerably higher than the national average. Similarly, for the lowest 20 percent, Wisconsins burden is lower than the 50-state average. Thats true, and it demonstrates the progressive nature of the Wisconsin system. The progressive income tax offsets the regressive effect, for example, of the sales tax. Aside from the graduated rate structure that rises with income, the states sliding standard deduction is powerfully progressive, as is the itemized deduction credit, notes Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance president Todd Berry. But the ITEP study also shows that by the time earnings reach an average of $28,000, Wisconsins personal income tax bite is already over the national average for the second 20 percent. PolitiFact Wisconsin in November 2012 reviewed a claim by state Rep. Robin Vos that on income taxes, Wisconsin is one of the best places in the country to be poor but top 4 or 5 worst for middle-income earners. We rated itMostly True. Wisconsin, in the 2013 ITEP study, is not singled out as at the very highest end as either progressive or regressive. Unlike most states, Wisconsin allows a large capital gains tax break, ITEP executive director Matthew Gardner wrote in an email. Since the benefits of this tax break go primarily to the best-off taxpayers, the capital gains tax break makes Wisconsins income tax much less progressive than you would think from just looking at the tax rates. Gardner said it would be reasonable to say that Wisconsin is in the upper tier of least regressive states based on its #12 ranking. But, in his view, its hard to describe the Wisconsin income tax -- or the tax system as a whole -- as among the most progressive in the US. In the Minnesota study, the rankings drop quite a bit when the comparison income is set at $35,000 instead of $10,000. The reason for that is related to the tax credits for very low earners that we mentioned earlier. Wisconsin has a prominent credit, helping to account for its progressive ranking. Such credits phase out as income rises, however, so those people would have a tax liability, unlike lower earners whose bill is wiped out by the credit, said Aaron Twait, research director at the Minnesota center. A few other states keep the credits in place at higher incomes, bumping up their progressive rating. Kooyenga could have balanced off some of the regressive effect of his plan by increasing tax credits for very low-income earners. But he notes that many workers in that category receive the credit even though they did not earn enough wages to have Wisconsin taxes withheld. Its a wage supplement in the form of a refund. That, in Kooyengas view, is one of the inappropriate social objectives in the tax code, his office told us. Our rating PItching his plan to begin flattening the Wisconsin state income tax code, Kooyenga said Wisconsin has one of the most progressive tax codes in the country. Kooyenga was talking about income taxes, and its clear from two national studies that Wisconsins tax is more progressive than two-thirds to four-fifths of the states that levy such a tax, depending on the study. So Wisconsin is clearly in the upper tier, but not in elite of the elite. We rate the claim Mostly True.

['Income', 'Jobs', 'Taxes', 'Wisconsin']

True

We have a long ways to go in Wisconsin, state Rep. Dale Kooyenga, R-Brookfield,told reporters.Everyone in Illinois pays 5 percent. Illinois millionaires pay less of a rate in taxes than Wisconsins lower income, middle-class families.Wisconsin was the first state to enact an income tax in 1911, he wrote in a May 27, 2013postingon the conservative Right Wisconsin website. The complexity of the Wisconsin tax code has exponentially grown as Madison politicians believed the tax code was their magic wand which could be used to accomplish political and social objectives.Top earners would likely receive the majority of the $444 million in tax savings under Kooyengas plan, and those with modest incomes would land in the same tax bracket as very high earners, theJournal Sentinel reported.Kooyenga acknowledges that, but says everyone deserves tax relief and that the top 10 percent right now pay over 50 percent of the tax revenue in Wisconsin.AMarch 2013 studyof 2010 tax data by the non-partisanMinnesota Center for Fiscal Excellence, a research organization, concluded that:The second study cited by Kooyenga is aJanuary 2013 examinationby the nonpartisan, liberalInstitute on Taxation and Economic Policy(ITEP) in Washington, D.C.(The group is a partner organization to Citizens for Tax Justice, which hascriticized the Walker and Kooyenga tax cutsas costly and regressive. Also, on May 30, 2013, ITEP released areview of Kooyengas plan, concluding that the top 20 percent of earners, a group with an average income of $183,000, would receive more than two-thirds of the benefit.)PolitiFact Wisconsin in November 2012 reviewed a claim by state Rep. Robin Vos that on income taxes, Wisconsin is one of the best places in the country to be poor but top 4 or 5 worst for middle-income earners. We rated itMostly True.

Must senior citizens receiving Social Security pay for Medicare while unauthorized immigrants receive it at no cost?

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

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

['taxes']

False

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

Is the 'Jeff Green Foundation' Email Giveaway a Scam or Legit?

["Billionaire philanthropists typically don't make multiple errors in grammar, nor do they ask people to respond to foreign email addresses."]

In May 2022, we received inquiries from our readers that asked if an email message from the "Jeff Green Foundation" was legitimate. According to the email, a philanthropist named Jeff Green had decided to give away $1 million each to 20 different lucky recipients. However, this had all the signs of a classic email scam. Jeff Green scam According to a screenshot captured by a reader, the email appeared like this: We transcribed the scam email below: scam From: Jeff Green Foundation Subject: My philanthropy! To: YOU Reply-To: privatewealth.donation@webmail.hu Greetings to you and your family. In a thousand years, I never thought I would do something like this. My Name is Jeff Green, Below is a Link of me and what i do. https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2 https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2 https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/ https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/ When I was 17, I met a homeless man named James in Five Points, Denver, Colorado. I spent hours listening to him, his stories, and the twists and turns of choice and fate that led him to a life on the streets. His journey deeply affected me, and I found myself dwelling on it a great deal over the following months, unable to shake one core question that was taking root in my mind - Why is he out here on the streets in the December cold while I am living a more comfortable life? I think this adage is generally true: luck is preparation meeting opportunity. But I also understand that many people experience major life events that obstruct their preparation and as a result, opportunity passes them by. I also believe that we all encounter people who can propel us forward or hold us back. No one gets to their situation in life alone, good or bad. I didn't get to this statistically outlying position alone, and neither did James. Money cannot buy happiness. Money can buy things that make life more enjoyable. But those things and that enjoyment are always fleeting. When you think about the problems you face in life, the accumulation of things is rarely the solution. My philanthropy is not about politics or handouts - it is about getting the best outcomes for all the potential talent, which can only benefit our nation, and humankind. It will help people step up to opportunity, not lay back. I will give away the vast majority of my wealth through data-driven philanthropy before or at my death. My target is more than 90 percent of my wealth. But I will also give of my time, my most precious commodity, to allocate those funds deliberately, and to be personally engaged. So I decided I was going to contact 20 people via their email address which I paid for from a Data Firm. If you receive this email, I am giving you $1 Million. Thinking about it again, I must be crazy to do something like this but crazy is what made me who I am today so lets go for it! All you have to do is reply to this email with your full names and you will be paid $1 Million. My Life's Mission is to deploy capital against humanity's toughest problems. Jeff Green. A search of Twitter showed that several users were curious whether the "Jeff Green Foundation" email was legitimate: Twitter We didn't find any similar messages available on Facebook, but it's likely that some users were discussing the email in private posts only visible to friends. Facebook Some of the paragraphs in the "Jeff Green Foundation" email scam were copied and pasted from the text of a genuine letter written by a real philanthropist named Jeff T. Green. In November 2021, Green truly did pledge to try to give away "more than 90 percent" of his billions in wealth. scam a genuine letter billions However, there's no indication that Green or his foundation had anything to do with the email scam. scam We quickly noticed several issues with the "Jeff Green Foundation" message. Before the email got into the "when I was 17" story from the genuine letter, several words were either capitalized or not capitalized that should have been the reverse. For example, one usage of the word "I" was left to be lowercase as "i" in the same sentence as an oddly-placed comma: "My Name is Jeff Green, Below is a Link of me and what i do." Additionally, the sentence was poorly worded. The message also asked recipients to respond to privatewealth.donation@webmail.hu. The idea that a billionaire philanthropist would publish an email with such poor grammar and, at the same time, ask people to respond to a fairly generic Hungarian email address, did not scream "legitimate." We reached out to a company associated with Green to see if they had been alerted to the scam that used his name. We will update this story if we receive a statement. scam In sum, no, the "Jeff Green Foundation" emails that promised $1 million each to 20 different people was not a legitimate giveaway. Jeff T. Green. The Giving Pledge, https://givingpledge.org/pledger?pledgerId=430. Stack, Peggy Fletcher. Richest Utah Native Vows to Give Away 90% of His Billions. The Salt Lake Tribune, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/. Swant, Marty. Billionaire Jeff T. Green, Founder Of The Trade Desk, Joins The Giving Pledge. Forbes, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.forbes.com/sites/martyswant/2021/11/16/the-trade-desk-founder-jeff-green-joins-list-of-billionaires-to-sign-the-giving-pledge/. Tavss, Jeff. Billionaire Utahn to Give Away 90% of His Wealth. KSTU, 16 Nov. 2021, https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealth.

['funds']

False

In May 2022, we received inquiries from our readers that asked if an email message from the "Jeff Green Foundation" was legitimate. According to the email, a philanthropist named Jeff Green had decided to give away $1 million each to 20 different lucky recipients. However, this had all the signs of a classic email scam.We transcribed the scam email below:https://www.forbes.com/profile/jeff-t-green/?sh=1fc2467a41e2https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/billionaire-utahn-to-give-away-90-of-his-wealthhttps://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/11/16/richest-utah-native-vows/A search of Twitter showed that several users were curious whether the "Jeff Green Foundation" email was legitimate:We didn't find any similar messages available on Facebook, but it's likely that some users were discussing the email in private posts only visible to friends.Some of the paragraphs in the "Jeff Green Foundation" email scam were copied and pasted from the text of a genuine letter written by a real philanthropist named Jeff T. Green. In November 2021, Green truly did pledge to try to give away "more than 90 percent" of his billions in wealth.However, there's no indication that Green or his foundation had anything to do with the email scam.We reached out to a company associated with Green to see if they had been alerted to the scam that used his name. We will update this story if we receive a statement.

Over half of the black workers in this country earn less than $15 an hour.

[]

During an all-candidates Democratic forum in Rock Hill, S.C., on Nov. 6, 2015, host Rachel Maddow of MSNBC asked Bernie Sanders how he could win the support of African-American voters, a crucial Democratic voting group in the early primary state of South Carolina. Maddow noted that Sanders was polling at 8 percent in a recent poll in South Carolina and asked if he would be able to convince African-American voters that he could advocate for their issues. Sanders responded in part by citing his economic platform, which he said would positively impact African-Americans. "I have the economic and social justice agenda now that, once we get the word out, will, in fact, resonate with the African-American community," Sanders said. "We're talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Over half of the black workers in this country earn less." We wondered whether Sanders was correct that over half of the black workers in this country earn less than $15 an hour, so we took a closer look. We turned to the most recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which, among other things, tracks the median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by race. The Bureau's data for the third quarter of 2015 shows that the median weekly earnings for African-American workers was $624. If you divide that by the standard 40 hours in a workweek, it works out to $15.60 per hour. That means that half of African-American workers earned less than $15.60. So Sanders was close on this but exaggerated slightly; his claim is off by a little more than 4 percent. When we asked Sanders' campaign for their source, they pointed us to a report issued earlier this month from the National Employment Law Project that found that 54.1 percent of African-American workers earned less than $15.00 an hour. The group calculated that figure using data from 2012 through 2014. That's a reasonable measurement, but while our figure covers a briefer period of time, it's also more current, reflecting the continued economic growth since the end of 2014. Our ruling: Sanders said that over half of the black workers in this country earn less than $15 an hour. Depending on the time frame used, the data shows that roughly half of black workers earn less than $15. The most recent data shows that half earn less than $15.60, which is a little higher than what Sanders said, but his number is not far off. We rate his claim Mostly True.

['National', 'Economy', 'Jobs', 'Race and Ethnicity']

True

I have the economic and social justice agenda now that, once we get the word out, will, in fact, resonate with the African-American community,Sanders said. We're talking about raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour. Over half of the black workers in this country earn less.We turned to themost recent data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, which, among other things, tracks the median weekly earnings of full-time wage and salary workers by race.When we asked Sanders campaign for their source, they pointed us to areportissued earlier this month from the National Employment Law Project that found that 54.1 percent of African-American workers earned less than $15.00 an hour.

Inheritance of a Family Name

['Are you in line for a windfall inheritance because you share your surname with a dead person?']

We all dream of rich relatives kicking the bucket and leaving us their fortunes, which is why this "unexpected inheritance" scam works as well as it does. My name is Becky J. Harding, I am a senior partner in the firm of Midland Consulting Limited: Private Investigators and Security Consultants. We are conducting a standard process investigation on behalf of HSBC, the International Banking Conglomerate. This investigation involves a client who shares the same surname with you and also the circumstances surrounding investments made by this client at HSBC Republic, the Private Banking arm of HSBC. The HSBC Private Banking client died in testate and nominated no successor in title over the investments made with the bank. The essence of this communication with you is to request you provide us information/comments on any or all of the four issues: 1-Are you aware of any relative/relation who shares your same name whose last known contact address was Brussels Belgium?2-Are you aware of any investment of considerable value made by such a person at the Private Banking Division of HSBC Bank PLC?3-Born on the 1st of october 19414-Can you establish beyond reasonable doubt your eligibility to assume status of successor in title to the deceased? It is pertinent that you inform us ASAP whether or not you are familiar with this personality that we may put an end to this communication with you and our inquiries surrounding this personality. You must appreciate that we are constrained from providing you with more detailed information at this point. Please respond to this mail as soon as possible to afford us the opportunity to close this investigation. Thank you for accommodating our enquiry. Becky J. Harding.For: Midland Consulting Limited.09/02/2004 Imagine being transformed overnight from office drudge to a member of the jet set it's the stuff of daydreams! (or at least the impetus to buy lottery tickets). Because this urge for the big "something for nothing" runs so deep in us, it makes us vulnerable to the machinations of con men, which is what these e-mailed come-ons areabout.This scam has been part of the grifters' bag of tricks for many a year. It was only a matter of time before it began showing up on the Internet, where those who make their livings by defrauding others have an even easier time vending their cons to the unwary. Though the text quoted above as our example is one of the more common forms this sort of come-on takes in the wilds of cyberspace, the scam can be dressed out any number of ways. How it is worded is far less important than its thrust its "hook" that you might be entitled to an inheritance you had no reason to expect was coming your way. Although the names change from e-mail to e-mail, the scam itself is immutable: potential victims receive notification they share the surname of a recently deceased person who failed to leave a will. This notification purportedly comes from a representative of a firm of "Private Investigators and Security Consultants," with said representative stating he or she is "conducting a standard process investigation on behalf of[name of large financial entity, such as Barclays or HSBC]." Recipients of those e-mails are then asked three or four questions along the lines of the following: How the about-to-be-scammed answer the questions is unimportant the queries are there merely to lend a patina of legitimacy to the inquiry. Regardless of whether potential victims respond with the news that none of their relatives have been to Brussels or whether they claim great-uncles whom the family subsequently lost track of after they settled there, the game is now afoot. In either case, they will be assured there is a very real chance significant inheritances are about to come their way, provided one small insignificant detail is first taken care of: payment of a fee to advance the matter. Similar to the Nigerian Scam and the foreign lottery fraud, the promise of untold wealth is used to distract the overly trusting away from the sorry fact that they are being asked to send money. In all three cases, the con works the same way: after being mesmerized by the vision of riches to come, those being taken advantage of are required to open their wallets and whip out their checkbooks to bring about the happy event. Nigerian Scam lottery There is no dead Uncle Fred, no rich deceased Reese. It's all a lie told to part you from your cash. So far we've seen versions of this scam emanating from supposed private investigating firms named Cappa Consultants, Midland Consulting Limited, and De Rosenberg Consulting, but the names the fraud artists choose to adopt for the purpose of parting the unwary from their money are unimportant; it's all a con. The names of genuine banking concerns (such as HSBC and Barclays) are dragged into the fray willy-nilly by the ill-intentioned to make the matter look more credible, but these real entities have nothing to do with the con. Indeed, as one official at HSBC responded to a query about these supposed windfall inheritances: It has come to our attention that a variation on an email is being circulated that has no connection to HSBC Republic. The email claims that HSBC Republic has employed investigators to contact the family of a deceased client who died intestate. To our knowledge such claims have no validity and we strongly recommend that recipients of such emails do not respond to the sender. Regards Web AdministrationHSBC Republic In another form of the scam, folks are contacted through regular mail by "estate locators" who say those receiving their notices are named beneficiaries of unclaimed family inheritances. Recipients are lured into mailing fees for estate reports, which will supposedly explain where their inheritances are located and how they can be claimed. These "estate locators" may also offer to process claims against these estates for a fee. It does occasionally happen someone so contacted does eventually find he or she has a right to claim against the estate of a distant relative who died without leaving a will. But in those cases, the amount garnered generally proves not to have been worth going after (indeed, often less than what was paid to the "locator" for the information). Estates do hire actual "heir locators" to find missing beneficiaries, but those so engaged are paid by the estate, not by the folks they find. There are also heir locators who freelance on a contingency basis, entering into agreements with those they connect with their rightful inheritances for percentages of sums so recovered. While this might sound like the scam being described above it's not these legitimate heir locators receive payment only after estates are settled and heirs so found have received their bequests. Ergo, if a "locator" is asking you to pay up front, it's a scam. Those still clinging to the hope that there might still be something to their pie-in-the-sky e-mail, that hints at a life of luxury are just in the offing, should pause to consider that professionals in the process of contacting legitimate heirs do so through recognizable law firms, with the contact coming in the form of an actual letter (as opposed to an e-mail) on that firm's letterhead. We find it somewhat amusing that "intestate" (meaning to die without leaving a will) is so often mis-rendered in the e-mails distributed by the defrauders: it either comes out as "in testate" or as "interstate" (which we presume means to die between two highways). What You Can Do: Additional information: Phony Inheritance Scam (United States Postal Service) Phony Inheritance Scam (United States Postal Service) Last updated: 27 November 2011 Choney, Suzanne. "Key Flaws Reveal Truth Behind New E-Mail Hoax."Copley News Service. 7 July 2003. Bangor Daily News. "Be Wary of Inheritance Notifications."2 February 2004 (p. A5).

['banking']

False

Similar to the Nigerian Scam and the foreign lottery fraud, the promise of untold wealth is used to distract the overly trusting away from the sorry fact that they are being asked to send money. In all three cases, the con works the same way: after being mesmerized by the vision of riches to come, those being taken advantage of are required to open their wallets and whip out their checkbooks to bring about the happy event. Phony Inheritance Scam (United States Postal Service)

Says his views on reparations for slavery are the same as Barack Obama's and Hillary Clinton's.

[]

From single-payer health care to free college tuition for all, Bernie Sanders' policy proposals have been both dismissed and lauded as radical. However, when it comes to reparations for slavery, some criticize the Vermont senator and presidential candidate for holding a more conventional view. Sanders' opposition to reparations has been the subject of controversy after Ta-Nehisi Coates called him out in The Atlantic, writing, "Unfortunately, Sanders's radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy." What he proposes in lieu of reparations—job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education—is well within the Overton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy. Meet the Press host Chuck Todd followed up with Sanders about Coates' column on Jan. 24, asking, "Why aren't you for reparations because of slavery for African Americans when you're calling for economic justice on so many other levels? Why do you stop short on that issue?" Sanders responded, "Well, for the same reason that Barack Obama has and the same reason, I believe, that Hillary Clinton has. And that is, it is absolutely wrong and unacceptable that we have so much poverty in this country, and it is even worse in the African American community." Todd chided Sanders for not answering the question, but Sanders again deflected, stating it was for the same reasons as Obama and Clinton. Is it true that his position against reparations is the same as Clinton and Obama's views? Sanders is correct that Obama's opposition echoes his own. (Coates calls this the conventional Democratic philosophy of a rising tide lifts all boats.) Clinton's stance is less direct but largely follows the same rationale. First, let's explain why Sanders is opposed to reparations for African Americans. When first asked about the issue by Fusion at the Jan. 11 Iowa Brown & Black Democratic Forum, Sanders stressed the political impracticability and polarizing nature of the proposal, suggesting prioritizing current economic inequality instead of compensating for past injustices. "First of all, its likelihood of getting through Congress is nil. Second of all, I think it would be very divisive. The real issue is when we look at the poverty rate among the African American community, when we look at the high unemployment rate within the African American community, we have a lot of work to do. So I think what we should be talking about is making massive investments in rebuilding our cities, in creating millions of decent-paying jobs, in making public colleges and universities tuition-free, basically targeting our federal resources to the areas where it is needed the most, and where it is needed the most is in impoverished communities, often African American and Latino." On Meet the Press, Sanders largely dropped the pragmatism argument (though he pushed back on the notion that his economic proposals are politically impossible) and focused instead on the second part of his rationale about improving economic conditions and schools for minorities. So how does this mirror, if at all, the approach by Obama and Clinton? In 2007 and 2008, then-presidential candidate Obama voiced his opposition to reparations, arguing that the best way to amend for the past is to focus on the present and future. "I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools," Obama said in a July 2007 CNN debate. Obama couched his opposition somewhat differently in a 2007 NAACP presidential questionnaire. He stated that nothing, including reparations, can fully compensate for the stain of slavery before arguing that reparations could lead to negligence on other matters of racial injustices: "I fear that reparations would be an excuse for some to say 'we've paid our debt' and to avoid the much harder work of enforcing our anti-discrimination laws in employment and housing; the much harder work of making sure that our schools are not separate and unequal; the much harder work of providing job training programs and rehabilitating young men coming out of prison every year; and the much harder work of lifting 37 million Americans of all races out of poverty. These challenges will not go away with reparations. So while I applaud and agree with the underlying sentiment of recognizing the continued legacy of slavery, I would prefer to focus on the issues that will directly address these problems—and building a consensus to do just that." Obama explains he will not pursue reparations because the action could be used as an excuse not to work on other lingering problems for minorities. Here, Obama's comments sound different from Sanders. Sanders and Obama sound more aligned in these comments by Obama from July 2008, which both Obama and the Sanders campaign pointed out: "You know, I have said in the past—and I'll repeat again—that the best reparations we can provide are good schools in the inner city and jobs for people who are unemployed. And, you know, I think that strategies that invest in lifting people out of the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow, but that have broad applicability and allow us to build coalitions to actually get these things done, that, I think, is the best strategy. You know, the fact is that dealing with some of the legacy of discrimination is going to cost billions of dollars. And we're not going to be able to have that kind of resource allocation unless all Americans feel that they are invested in making this stuff happen. And so, you know, I'm much more interested in talking about how do we get every child to learn? How do we get every person health care? How do we make sure that everybody has a job? How do we make sure that every senior citizen can retire with dignity and respect? And if we have a program, for example, of universal health care, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because they're disproportionately uninsured. If we've got an agenda that says every child in America should be able to go to college, regardless of income, that will disproportionately affect people of color, because it's oftentimes our children who can't afford to go to college." Obama, as far as we can tell through searching Nexis, has not changed or revisited his stance on reparations since 2008. Clinton's recent and past comments suggest her ideas for helping the black community are no different from Sanders' and Obama's. Clinton didn't directly answer the question about reparations at the Iowa Brown & Black Forum, but she also suggested investing in black communities and addressing poverty: "I think we should start studying what investments we need to make in

['National', 'Income', 'Race and Ethnicity', 'Poverty']

True

Sanders opposition to reparations has been the subject of some controversy after Ta-Nehisi Coates called him out inThe Atlantic,writing, Unfortunately, Sanderss radicalism has failed in the ancient fight against white supremacy. What he proposes in lieu of reparations job creation, investment in cities, and free higher education is well within theOverton window, and his platform on race echoes Democratic orthodoxy.Meet the Presshost Chuck Todd followed up with Sanders about Coates columnJan. 24, asking, Why aren't you for reparations because of slavery for African-Americans when you're calling for economic justice on so many other levels? Why do you stop short on that issue?Sanders is right that Obamas opposition echoes his own. (Coatescallsthis the conventional Democratic philosophy of a rising tide lifts all boats.) Clintons stance is less direct but largely follows the same rationale.When first asked about the issue byFusionat the Jan. 11 Iowa Brown & Black Democratic Forum, Sanders stressed the political impracticability and polarizing nature of the proposal, and suggested prioritizing current economic inequality in lieu of compensating for past injustices.I think the reparations we need right here in South Carolina is investment, for example, in our schools, Obama said in aJuly 2007 CNN debate.Obama couched his opposition somewhat differently in a 2007NAACP presidential questionnaire. He said that nothing, including reparations, can fully compensate for the stain of slavery before arguing that reparations could lead to negligence on other matters of racial injustices:Sanders and Obama sound more aligned in thesecommentsby Obama from July 2008, which both Obama and the Sanders campaign pointed out:Clinton didnt directly answer the question about reparations at the Iowa Brown & Black Forum, but she alsosuggestedinvesting in black communities and addressing poverty:In October 2015, she provided a similar response when asked by the hosts of theBuzzFeedpodcast Another Round:As Fusionpointed out, this was largely Clintons answer in 2000 as well. When she was asked about reparations during her Senate campaign, shesaidAfrican-Americans deserve an apology for slavery before pivoting to economic conditions.

Did Sheep Walk Through Gate Despite There Being No Fence?

['A photograph purportedly showing a group of sheep passing through a gate despite the absence of a fence is frequently shared as an example of "the trap of thinking."']

A photograph purportedly showing a group of sheep squeezing through a gate despite the absence of a fence is frequently shared as an example of "the trap of thinking." A herd of sheep is leaving the stall. There is no fence, only the gate... "The Trap of Thinking." However, whether or not the sheep are stopping to think about it, there is actually a fence in the image displayed above. This image was taken by Australian photographer Scott Bridle in 2012 and shows a group of sheep passing through a gate at Brenda Station. While the encircling fence may be hard to see in this particular photograph, fence posts are clearly visible in a higher resolution version. Furthermore, fenced-in sheep can be seen in two other images Bridle took of Brenda Station in 2012. Finally, Carolyn Ferguson of Scott Bridle Photography confirmed to us that there was indeed a fence in this photograph: "Yes, there is definitely a fence." Update [July 6, 2022]: Headline reformatting, SEO/social updates.

['share']

False

This image was taken by Australian photographer Scott Bridle in 2012, and shows a group of sheep passing through a gate at Brenda Station. While the encircling fence may be hard to see in this particular photograph, fence posts are clearly visible in a higher resolution version. Furthermore, fenced-in sheep can be seen in two other images Bridle took of Brenda Station in 2012:

Did Sex Traffickers in Florida Trick Motorists By Lying in the Road?

['Yet another sex trafficking scare was promoted on social media in late 2019.']

In late 2019, concerned readers asked us about a series of widely shared Facebook posts that claimed to include photographic evidence of a new tactic being employed by sex traffickers in the state of Florida, and in the city of Tampa, in particular. The earliest example of the post that we found was published on Nov. 19. It included three photographs that appeared to show a road at night, with a car pulled over and a person lying on his or her back in the middle of the road. The message read: read "This Shit Happened To My Lil Brother Last Night In Tampa, Sex Trafficking Is Real, These People Lay In The Middle Of The Road And Act Like Their Car Broke Down Or Play Hurt For You To Stop. When U Get Out The Car They Attack. If Yall See Anything Like This, Dont Hesitate To Run Their Ass Over. If U Scared Then Try Your Best To Go Around, But Whatever You Do, Dont Get Out Of Your Car, Lock Your Doors And Keep It Moving....!!!!!!!!!!!" Over the course of the following days and weeks, the same or similar messages, using the same photographs, were shared hundreds of thousands of times. In some cases, the "lying in the road" method was identified as a sex trafficking ruse specific to Tampa, and in other cases specific to the state of Florida. In still other instances, no geographic marker was provided, giving many readers the impression that sex traffickers all across the United States were using the same ruse. In each case, the Facebook post claimed that the photographs were merely one illustration of a broader trend of incidents, and that the purported "lying-in-the-road" ruse was a prevalent sex trafficking tactic. some cases Tampa Florida still other In reality, we found no evidence to support or corroborate the claim that a pattern of incidents existed, in Tampa, in Florida, or anywhere in the United States, in which sex traffickers attempted to kidnap unsuspecting motorists by tricking them into stopping their cars by lying in the middle of the road. Nor did we find any evidence that the photographs included in the November and December 2019 Facebook posts showed a specific incident of attempted sex trafficking. A spokesperson for the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (akin to the "state police" found in other states) told Snopes that the agency "has not heard of this tactic in Tampa or elsewhere." A spokesperson for the Tampa Police Department told Snopes much the same and emphasized that "No such incident took place in Tampa." The spokesperson added, "We have not heard of this method or tactic being used in our jurisdiction." A spokesperson for the Hillsborough County Sheriff's Office (the county where Tampa is located) also told Snopes: "No reports have been filed related to this incident or matching what is described in the post, so we can not confirm if it is related to human trafficking or if it is even real." Laura Palumbo, communications director for the National Sexual Violence Resource Center, told Snopes in a statement that: "Our organization is not aware of any reports of human trafficking similar to the one described in these viral social media posts ... Although it may be possible that in isolated incidents human trafficking attempts like this have occurred in the past, it is unlikely that this is a common trend." Both Theresa Prichard, associate director of the Florida Council Against Sexual Violence, and Kathleen Kempe, senior director of the Crisis Center of Tampa Bay, also told Snopes they had never heard of any such sex trafficking tactic. It's not clear what the origins of the photographs were. We put a series of questions to the Cornelius King Facebook account above where the trafficking post originated, requesting to speak to his brother, who according to the post was a firsthand witness to the alleged incident shown in the photographs. We asked whether he, his brother, or anyone else had reported the alleged incident to any law enforcement agency, the exact time and location of the incident, and we requested any evidence that might corroborate the claim that the alleged incident was connected to sex trafficking. We received no response. It's also unclear whether the photographs were authentic or staged, perhaps as part of a stunt, prank, advertisement, or film of some kind. If they were authentic, it's not clear what the motives or state of mind were of the person shown lying in the road. The photographs themselves do not contain any elements or features whose presence indicates a connection to sex trafficking, in particular, as opposed to several other explanations. Since we have not yet discovered the origins of, and facts surrounding, the photographs, we cannot definitively rule out the possibility that they show a specific instance of attempted kidnapping or sex trafficking. However, based on the responses provided by several law enforcement agencies and relevant non-profit organizations, we can say that no broader pattern or trend of incidents exists in Tampa, or Florida, or in the United States, whereby motorists are tricked into stopping their cars by a person lying in the middle of the road, as part of a sex trafficking plot. All of the widely shared Facebook posts cited above claimed that the photographs were an illustration of a broader trend. As a result, we are issuing a rating of

['profit']

False

The earliest example of the post that we found was published on Nov. 19. It included three photographs that appeared to show a road at night, with a car pulled over and a person lying on his or her back in the middle of the road. The message read:Over the course of the following days and weeks, the same or similar messages, using the same photographs, were shared hundreds of thousands of times. In some cases, the "lying in the road" method was identified as a sex trafficking ruse specific to Tampa, and in other cases specific to the state of Florida. In still other instances, no geographic marker was provided, giving many readers the impression that sex traffickers all across the United States were using the same ruse. In each case, the Facebook post claimed that the photographs were merely one illustration of a broader trend of incidents, and that the purported "lying-in-the-road" ruse was a prevalent sex trafficking tactic.

Does 2021 Infrastructure Bill Include 'Methane Tax' on Cattle, Pigs?

['Republican Congressman Markwayne Mullin said Democratic proposals for a "methane tax" would "run ranchers out of business." But do his claims stack up?']

In October and November 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of social media posts claiming that the Build Back Better Act, a major budget and infrastructure bill, contained a "methane tax" of around $2,600 per head of cattle and around $500 per swine per year. For example, one widely shared Facebook post claimed: "Were you aware the $3.5 Trillion Human Infrastructure package includes an animal agriculture tax of $2,600 per head of cattle? $500 for swine!" The post contained a photograph of a column written by U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma. In the column, which was also posted to his website on September 22, Mullin claimed that in an attempt to eliminate fossil fuels, this legislation [the Build Back Better Act] would impose a fee on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry. We all know that a fee is just a tax and that consumers are the ones who will pay for it. The tax is estimated to cost $6,500 per dairy cow, $2,600 per head of cattle, and $500 per swine each year. That is more than what the animals are worth; it will run ranchers out of business. Mullin's description of the provisions of the bill was inaccurate, as were the numerous social media posts based on it. At the time those claims were made, and as of November 2, 2021, the Build Back Better Act did not contain a tax or fee on methane that would equate to thousands of dollars per head of cattle or hundreds of dollars per head of swine. As a result, we are issuing a rating of H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act, which is a 2,468-page budget and infrastructure bill that has been the subject of intensive negotiations during the fall of 2021. Section 30114 of the legislation provides for a "methane fee," but it applies only to "petroleum and natural gas systems," and not the agriculture sector. Therefore, Mullin's claim that "this legislation would impose a 'fee' on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry" is false. A spokesperson for Mullin told Politifact that the congressman was referring to an amendment to the bill proposed by Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would have explicitly stipulated that the methane fee does not apply to agriculture. Democrats voted down that proposal on the basis that the text of the legislation already explicitly stipulated that the fee related only to oil and gas production. While expressing concern about hypothetical future actions on the part of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the spokesperson effectively acknowledged that the Build Back Better Act does not currently do what Mullin claimed it did: "While the language specifies the oil and gas industry, it also references the EPA's greenhouse gas inventory and leaves too much room for the EPA to expand its regulatory reach." The same spokesperson also told Politifact that the key figures from Mullin's op-ed—"$6,500 per dairy cow, $2,600 per head of cattle, and $500 per swine"—came from an analysis prepared by the American Farm Bureau Federation (AFBF). However, the AFBF later issued its own news release clarifying that the analysis was conducted to address an entirely hypothetical question, namely what the effect of a methane tax would be if it were applied to the agriculture industry—a proposal that no participants in Congressional negotiations have so far made. In that September 30 news release, AFBF Vice President Sam Kieffer said: "Over the summer, American Farm Bureau economists conducted an analysis, at the request of Congressional committee staff, to determine the potential impact if agriculture were to be included in legislation imposing such a tax. We did so based on the formula set forth in legislative proposals that impose a methane tax on the oil and gas sectors. While we oppose any tax on methane, Farm Bureau is grateful to lawmakers for recognizing the thin margins in agriculture and that such a tax would undoubtedly put family farms out of business. We are especially grateful to the Senate for passing an amendment that specifically exempts agriculture." That Senate amendment was proposed by U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and passed by a vote of 66-33 on August 10. It prohibited "the imposition of new Federal methane requirements on livestock."

['budget']

False

For example, one widely-shared Facebook post claimed:The post contained a photograph of a column written by U.S. Rep. Markwayne Mullin, a Republican from Oklahoma. In the column, which was also posted to his website on Sep. 22, Mullin claimed that:H.R. 5376, the Build Back Better Act, is a 2,468-page budget and infrastructure bill, and has been the subject of intensive negotiations during the fall of 2021. Section 30114 of the legislation provides for a "methane fee," but it applies only to "petroleum and natural gas systems," and not the agriculture sector. Therefore, Mullin's claim that "this legislation would impose a 'fee' on all methane emissions, including in our agriculture industry" is false. A spokesperson for Mullin told Politifact that the congressman was referring to an amendment to the bill, proposed by Republicans in the House Energy and Commerce Committee, which would have explicitly stipulated that the methane fee does not apply to agriculture. Democrats voted down that proposal, on the basis that the text of the legislation already explicitly stipulated that the fee related only to oil and gas production. In that Sept. 30 news release, AFBF Vice President Sam Kieffer said:That Senate amendment was one proposed by U.S. Sen. Joni Ernst, R-Iowa, and passed by a vote of 66-33 on Aug. 10. It prohibited "the imposition of new Federal methane requirements on livestock."

Was 'America First' a Slogan of the Ku Klux Klan?

['The white supremacist group made frequent use of the slogan more recently embraced by President Donald Trump, though they did not, as some claim, invent it.']

Early in his bid for the United States presidency, Donald Trump adopted a catchphrase that encapsulated his entire political philosophy in just two words: "America first." The slogan was front and center in Trump's first major foreign policy speech as a candidate in April 2016: "My foreign policy will always put the interests of the American people and American security above all else. It has to be first. Has to be. That will be the foundation of every single decision that I will make. America first will be the major and overriding theme of my administration." He then used the phrase to characterize his planned approach to immigration policy, which would be much more restrictive than the policies of the previous few decades: "We need a system that serves our needs, not the needs of others. Remember, under a Trump administration, it's called America first. Remember that. To choose immigrants based on merit. Merit, skill, and proficiency. Doesn't that sound nice? And to establish new immigration controls to boost wages and to ensure that open jobs are offered to American workers first." It would also become the centerpiece of Trump's inauguration address in January 2017: "We assembled here today are issuing a new decree to be heard in every city, in every foreign capital, and in every hall of power. From this day forward, a new vision will govern our land. From this day forward, it's going to be only America first, America first. Every decision on trade, on taxes, on immigration, on foreign affairs will be made to benefit American workers and American families. We must protect our borders from the ravages of other countries making our products, stealing our companies, and destroying our jobs." In addition to figuring prominently in his speeches, "America first" has turned up regularly in Trump's tweets, often paired with his other favorite rallying cry, "Make America great again": "In trade, military and EVERYTHING else, it will be AMERICA FIRST! This will quickly lead to our ultimate goal: MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!" Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2016. "A vote to CUT TAXES is a vote to PUT AMERICA FIRST. It is time to take care of OUR WORKERS, to protect OUR COMMUNITIES, and to REBUILD OUR GREAT COUNTRY!" Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2017. As Trump's critics have accurately observed, the president did not invent the phrase "America First," nor was he the first public figure to sloganize it. More to the point, they say, many of the social and political contexts in which it has been used in the past were unsavory. The Anti-Defamation League noted in an April 2016 statement urging Trump to reconsider his use of it that "America First" was associated before and during World War II with an isolationist political organization, some of whose members openly displayed pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic tendencies: "The most noteworthy leader of the 'America First Committee' was Charles Lindbergh, who sympathized with the Nazis and whose rhetoric was characterized by anti-Semitism and offensive stereotypes, including assertions that Jews posed a threat to the U.S. because of their influence in motion pictures, radio, the press, and the government. The undercurrents of anti-Semitism and bigotry that characterized the America First movement—including the assumption that Jews who opposed the movement had their own agenda and were not acting in America's best interest—are fortunately not a major concern today," said Jonathan A. Greenblatt, ADL CEO. "However, for many Americans, the term America First will always be associated with and tainted by this history. In a political season that has already prompted a national conversation about civility and tolerance, choosing a call to action historically associated with incivility and intolerance seems ill-advised." Other Trump critics identify the slogan with the infamous white supremacist hate group the Ku Klux Klan, one of whose ex-leaders, David Duke, himself ran for public office in 2016 on an "America first" platform. Social media memes critical of Trump's enthusiasm for the slogan use archival images and Klan memorabilia to make the point that its history is anything but innocuous: "The images above are authentic. The photo of KKK members marching with an 'America first' banner dates from the 1920s and can be found in the Getty Images archive. The Ku Klux Klan 'coin' (actually a token) bearing the slogans 'America First' and 'Preserve Racial Purity' on one face and 'The Invisible Empire' on the other was struck in 1965 to celebrate the centennial of the KKK's founding, numismatists say, although it was never officially endorsed by the organization. The phrase 'America first' also appears in Klan literature as part of a longer credo, 'America first, last and forever,' or its variant 'America first, last and always,' as uttered by a KKK speaker quoted in the Binghamton, New York Press and Sun-Bulletin in 1923: 'I stand for America first, last and always,' the speaker began. 'I am opposed to any organization which tries to bring in foreign and alien ideals.' Another variant is enshrined in an 'Imperial Proclamation' submitted as evidence during a Congressional hearing on the Klan's activities in 1921: '[The Klan] stands for America first—first in thought, first in affections, and first in the galaxy of nations. The Stars and Stripes forever above all other and every kind of government in the whole world.' Despite their embrace of the slogan, however, there is no evidence that the Ku Klux Klan invented it, as has sometimes been alleged. There are instances of its use by politicians predating any examples we've found directly attributable to the Klan. President Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election on an 'America first' platform in 1916, for example, using the phrase to remind voters that his isolationist stance had kept U.S. troops out of the burgeoning conflict in Europe (never mind that he abandoned that position and sent them to fight in World War I during his second term). A popular song called 'America First!' was dedicated to Wilson and published in 1917. For that matter, Presidents Calvin Coolidge, Warren G. Harding, and William McKinley all used the catchphrase at one time or another to promote isolationist and/or protectionist foreign policies (we found an instance of McKinley being touted as having an 'America first' agenda as long ago as 1896). In sum, the political slogan 'America First' has a pedigree stretching back more than a hundred years, with connotations ranging from anti-expansionism and trade protectionism to outright racism and anti-Semitism. Although it has been trumpeted over time by hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan, its use does not automatically confer the most heinous of those attitudes on the user—although, given its less savory associations, one wonders why any informed person would embrace it today.

['taxes']

True

The slogan was front and center in Trump's first major foreign policy speech as a candidate in April 2016:He then used the phrase to characterize his planned approach to immigration policy, which would be much more restrictive than policies of the previous few decades:It would also become the centerpiece of Trump's inauguration address in January 2017:In addition to figuring prominently in his speeches, "America first" has turned up regularly in Trump's tweets, often paired with his other favorite rallying cry, "Make America great again": Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) May 23, 2016A vote to CUT TAXES is a vote to PUT AMERICA FIRST. It is time to take care of OUR WORKERS, to protect OUR COMMUNITIES, and to REBUILD OUR GREAT COUNTRY! https://t.co/wW3QNxcCHf pic.twitter.com/sRL2yRK6k2 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 29, 2017The Anti-Defamation League noted in an April 2016 statement urging Trump to reconsider his use of it that "America First" was associated before and during World War II with an isolationist political organization some of whose members openly displayed pro-Nazi and anti-Semitic tendencies:Other Trump critics identify the slogan with the infamous white supremacist hate group the Ku Klux Klan, one of whose ex-leaders, David Duke, himself ran for public office in 2016 on an "America first" platform. Social media memes critical of Trump's enthusiasm for the slogan use archival images and Klan memorabilia to make the point that its history is anything but innocuous:The images above are authentic. The photo of KKK members marching with an "America first" banner dates from the 1920s and can be found in the Getty Images archive. The Ku Klux Klan "coin" (actually a token) bearing the slogans "America First" and "Preserve Racial Purity" on one face and "The Invisible Empire" on the other was struck in 1965 to celebrate the centennial of the KKK's founding, numismatists say, although it was never officially endorsed by the organization.Another variant is enshrined in an "Imperial Proclamation" submitted as evidence during a Congressional hearing on the Klan's activities in 1921:President Woodrow Wilson ran for re-election on an "America first" platform in 1916, for example, in that instance using the phrase to remind voters that his isolationist stance had kept U.S. troops out of the burgeoning conflict in Europe (never mind that he abandoned that position and sent them to fight in World War I during his second term). A popular song called "America First!" was dedicated to Wilson and published in 1917.

Is this a Photograph of a Large Storm Over Sydney?

['Beware of composite, violent weather phenomena.']

An image supposedly capturing a large storm looming over Sydney, Australia, racked up thousands of views as it was passed around on Facebook in March 2019: Facebook This is not a genuine photograph of a storm over Sydney, but rather a composite of at least two different images. The photograph of the Sydney cityscape was taken by photographer Rudy Blasko and shared to his Instagram page in April 2017. The original image depicted Sydney's Lavender Bay at sunset, not during a major storm: Rudy Blasko Sunset in the city. Sydney Lavender Bay . #sydney #australia #ig_shotz #ig_masterpiece #instagram #neverstopexploring #natgeotravel #natgeotravelpic #agameoftones #sunset #photoprints #main_vision #lavenderbay #canonusa #canon_photos #canonaustralia #worldtravel #worldcaptures #wow_australia #australiagram #australia_oz #moodygrams #earthpix #earth_shotz #earthofficial #longexpoelite #longexposure #longexposure_shots #shoot2kill #harbourbridge Sunset in the city. Sydney Lavender Bay . #sydney #australia #ig_shotz #ig_masterpiece #instagram #neverstopexploring #natgeotravel #natgeotravelpic #agameoftones #sunset #photoprints #main_vision #lavenderbay #canonusa #canon_photos #canonaustralia #worldtravel #worldcaptures #wow_australia #australiagram #australia_oz #moodygrams #earthpix #earth_shotz #earthofficial #longexpoelite #longexposure #longexposure_shots #shoot2kill #harbourbridge A post shared by Rudi Balasko (@rudib1976) on Apr 13, 2017 at 9:46am PDT Rudi Balasko The storm clouds in this viral picture appear to be a distorted version of a photograph available via Adobe Stock, which supposedly shows a supercell that formed in Colorado in 2013. The original cloud photograph was flipped and stretched before it was inserted into the viral image. Adobe Stock Colorado We're not entirely certain that the original photograph captured a genuine storm (the image is available on various stock photo websites with varying information), but supercell clouds are certainly real. Here's how NASA described these alien-looking cloud formations when describing a similar photograph taken in Montana in 2010: stock photo NASA Is that a spaceship or a cloud? Although it may seem like an alien mothership, it's actually a impressive thunderstorm cloud called a supercell. Such colossal storm systems center on mesocyclones -- rotating updrafts that can span several kilometers and deliver torrential rain and high winds including tornadoes. Jagged sculptured clouds adorn the supercell's edge, while wind swept dust and rain dominate the center. The following collage shows the two original images (left) and the doctored photograph (right). We rotated and stretched the cloud image to better match the edited "Stormy Over Sydney" photograph: NASA. "A Supercell Thunderstorm Cloud Over Montana." 26 February 2017.

['lien']

False

An image supposedly capturing a large storm looming over Sydney, Australia, racked up thousands of views as it was passed around on Facebook in March 2019:The photograph of the Sydney cityscape was taken by photographer Rudy Blasko and shared to his Instagram page in April 2017. The original image depicted Sydney's Lavender Bay at sunset, not during a major storm:Sunset in the city. Sydney Lavender Bay . #sydney #australia #ig_shotz #ig_masterpiece #instagram #neverstopexploring #natgeotravel #natgeotravelpic #agameoftones #sunset #photoprints #main_vision #lavenderbay #canonusa #canon_photos #canonaustralia #worldtravel #worldcaptures #wow_australia #australiagram #australia_oz #moodygrams #earthpix #earth_shotz #earthofficial #longexpoelite #longexposure #longexposure_shots #shoot2kill #harbourbridgeA post shared by Rudi Balasko (@rudib1976) on Apr 13, 2017 at 9:46am PDTThe storm clouds in this viral picture appear to be a distorted version of a photograph available via Adobe Stock, which supposedly shows a supercell that formed in Colorado in 2013. The original cloud photograph was flipped and stretched before it was inserted into the viral image.We're not entirely certain that the original photograph captured a genuine storm (the image is available on various stock photo websites with varying information), but supercell clouds are certainly real. Here's how NASA described these alien-looking cloud formations when describing a similar photograph taken in Montana in 2010:

Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt.

[]

Sen. Mark Warners re-election stump speech dwells on giving everyone an equal opportunity and high on that list is an affordable college education. Warner and many of his fellow Democrats have called for legislation that would ease student debt by allowing students to refinance their federal college loans at substantially lower interest rates and limit their loan repayments to 10 percent of their annual income. President Barack Obama endorsed those measures during a speech Monday.. Warner, during a recent speech of his own,said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt. This statistic caught our attention, so we put it to the Truth-O-Meter. David Turner, spokesman for Warners campaign, backed up the statement by sending us aspeechby an official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anddatafrom the Federal Reserve System. Both of those sources say that student debt has topped $1 trillion and the speech noted that it had surpassed credit cards. But the best data comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which publishesdebt statisticsevery quarter. In the most recent report, covering first three months of 2014, student loan debt totaled $1.1 trillion, while credit card debt hit $659 billion. The largest type of debt for Americans is mortgages, which came in at $8.2 trillion in the first quarter. Student loan debt is No. 2, followed by automobile loans at $875 billion and credit card debt in making up $11.7 trillion in all debt. Student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, when college loans hit $762 billion. Student debt topped the $1 trillion mark in the third quarter of last year. Average tuition across the nation increased 79.5 percent from 2003-2013, according todatafrom the U.S. Labor Department. For comparison, the Consumer Price Index grew by26.7percent during the same span and average wages grew by30.1percent. Credit card debt, by contrast, has gradually fallen from $843 billion in early 2009 to its $659 billion level this year. Much of the decrease occurred during the recession when people cut back on spending. But the recession exacerbated college debts, according to Caroline Ratcliffe, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute. She cited two reasons: You have to remember that during the time of the Great Recession, more people were going back to school because of the job situation, so they were taking on more debt, she said. Astudyshe co-wrote tackled the demographics of people with student loan debt. It found that student loan debt, for those ages 29 to 37, had increased by $10,381 on average from 1989 to 2010, while car loans had increased $302, credit card debt had increased $1,215 and other debt had decreased $2,078. In 2012, 40 percent of Americans in their 20s had student debt, 30 percent in their 30s owed on student loans, 19 percent of Americans in their 40s, 12 percent in their 50s and 4 percent in their 60s. This included students and parents who borrowed to send their children to college. Our ruling Warner said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt. His figure on student debt is accurate and total U.S. credit card debt in the first quarter of this year was $659 billion. We rate Warners statement True.

['Debt', 'Education', 'Message Machine 2014', 'Virginia']

True

Warner, during a recent speech of his own,said, Right now, America has $1.1 trillion of student debt. Thats more than credit card debt.David Turner, spokesman for Warners campaign, backed up the statement by sending us aspeechby an official at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau anddatafrom the Federal Reserve System.Both of those sources say that student debt has topped $1 trillion and the speech noted that it had surpassed credit cards. But the best data comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which publishesdebt statisticsevery quarter.Average tuition across the nation increased 79.5 percent from 2003-2013, according todatafrom the U.S. Labor Department. For comparison, the Consumer Price Index grew by26.7percent during the same span and average wages grew by30.1percent.Astudyshe co-wrote tackled the demographics of people with student loan debt. It found that student loan debt, for those ages 29 to 37, had increased by $10,381 on average from 1989 to 2010, while car loans had increased $302, credit card debt had increased $1,215 and other debt had decreased $2,078.

Verifying Information: Ellie Kemper, the Ku Klux Klan, and the 'Veiled Prophet Ball'

['The actors ties to a controversial St. Louis debutante ball were unearthed in a 1999 photograph. ']

The troubling history of a society ball for young debutantes has come under scrutiny through an unlikely figure Kimmy Schmidt. No, not fictional Kimmy Schmidt, who was rescued from a cult in the popular Netflix show, but the actor who played her. Ellie Kemper, known for her roles in Bridesmaids, The Office, and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, was at the center of an internet controversy when someone found old photographs of her winning a title at a debutante ball allegedly linked to a white supremacist group in her home city of St. Louis, Missouri. center According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in 1999, Kemper won the title of Queen of Love and Beauty at the "Veiled Prophet Ball," an annual event for debutantes, that was organized by a society known as the Veiled Prophet Organization (VPO). The ball still takes place in December every year, except in 2020 on account of the pandemic. takes place We found the original clippings from the newspaper in 1999: The VPO was reportedly co-founded in 1878 by a former Confederate officer and historically excluded Black and Jewish people. Originally intended as a celebration for the citys wealthy, the Veiled Prophet Ball and the events surrounding it were, according to one historian, meant to reinforce the elites values over working class activism in the city. The VPO only admitted Black members in 1979. co-founded Twitter users also honed in on an image depicting a Veiled Prophet from 1878, which shows a person wearing a white costume and a pointed hat. The image was eerily similar to the white robes and hood worn by the white supremacist organization the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Many started calling Kemper the KKK princess alleging ties between the VPO and the KKK and highlighting the racist history behind the VPOs activities. image Ku Klux Klan We learned that while the group does have a troubling history of racial discrimination within the organization, there is no clear evidence tying the group to the KKK. While Kemper did participate and win a title at the ball in 1999, there is also no evidence that she herself harbors racist beliefs. We reached out to representatives for Kemper for comment and will update this post if we get any more information. Below, we break down the history of the VPO, the ball, and the claims made about Kemper. It began in 1878, when a group of prominent businessmen formed an organization that instituted an annual ball and parade, which was presided over by a mysterious Veiled Prophet. This was usually one member of the organization in disguise, whose identity was not meant to be revealed. The parade ostensibly was meant to generate pride and interest in St. Louis as a prominent city. At the ball, daughters of Veiled Prophet members were presented and the Veiled Prophet would select one to reign as the Queen of Love and Beauty. formed The idea for this organization is commonly attributed to two brothers, Confederate Colonel Alonzo Slayback and his brother, Charles Slayback, a Confederate cavalryman. According to an essay in The Common Reader, a monthly publication by Washington University in St. Louis, the Veiled Prophet was drawn from a poem by Thomas Moore titled The Story of the Veiled Prophet of Khorassan, found in the book of poetry Lalla Rookh, published in 1817. The prophet in the poem is a wealthy man from the East, who is rewarded with opulent receptions wherever he goes. attributed The Common Reader Academics interpret the Veiled Prophet of the poem as a symbol of moral depravity, however, who rapes and corrupts the beautiful and virtuous high priestess Zelica, allegedly the inspiration for the Queen of Love and Beauty. interpret The Veiled Prophet in St. Louis, according to a book the organization published in 1928, is meant to be a beloved despot, evasive but real, who rules with an iron hand encased in velvet. The organizations interpretation of the Veiled Prophet showed him as a symbol of moral rectitude. published According to historian Thomas Spencers book The St. Louis Veiled Prophet Celebration: Power on Parade, 1877-1995, the parade was the business elites response to the workers strike of 1877, meant to awe the masses towards passivity with its symbolic show of power. The St. Louis Veiled Prophet Celebration: Power on Parade, 1877-1995, But it was civil rights protests from the 1960s to the 1980s that made people of the city perceive the parade and ball as wasteful and conspicuous consumption. Black activists with the Action Committee to Improve Opportunities for Negroes (ACTION) protested the events. An integrated group with Black leadership and white members who helped them get access to spaces normally off limits to minorities, the group carried out direct action protests, and sought economic justice through more jobs for minorities. By protesting the parade and ball, they were targeting big businessmen and corporations. perceive protested They also held parody balls which mocked the largely white Veiled Prophet events and crowned a Black Queen of Human Justice. In 1972, ACTION even managed to infiltrate a ball through three white women members who obtained tickets. According to The Common Reader: parody balls infiltrate The Common Reader As one woman shouted Down with the VP! another swung down from the balcony on a cable to the stage (the fall crushed three of her ribs). She told an official that she had fallen, and managed to sneak on stage, standing right next to the seated Veiled Prophet. She pulled the veil from his face, and then was quickly rushed offstage by the Bengal Lancers, the VPs protective guard. The VP, a Monsanto executive vice president, put his crown and veil back on, and the ball proceeded as usual. During this period of civil rights protests, the parade avoided Black neighborhoods on its route. ACTION's ultimate goal was to pressure business leaders to give jobs to more Black people. Members of ACTION also lay down in front of parade floats, chained themselves to floats and distributed leaflets, and reportedly picketed the balls with signs like VEILED PROFIT$ or VP=KKK. Percy Green, an activist behind ACTION said of the Veiled Prophet ball, parade, and the businessmen involved, "No wonder these people dont hire Blacks because they are socially involved in these all-white organizations [...]." avoided pressure lay down said Indeed, the organization remained primarily white until 1979 when it admitted its first Black members, who were three doctors. Older members reportedly insisted that the doctors were admitted because they had earned their place among the elite. insisted We reached out to the modern-day VPO. A spokesperson described the ball as "a venue to introduce young ladies, generally in their sophomore year of college, to the St. Louis community and instill the value of community service. During the preceding summer, the debutants and their families contribute more than 3,500 hours of volunteer time to countless service projects coordinated through the Veiled Prophet Community Service Initiative to participate in the Ball." Rumors of a connection with the KKK grew from the first available image of a Veiled Prophet from an 1878 issue of the Missouri Republican, which shows a figure dressed in white robes with a pointed cap. image The image does not actually indicate the VPO was connected to the KKK. The KKK did not use this uniform until the early 1900s, when the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation depicted the white robes and hoods. Around 1921, the KKK was mass-producing similar white robes and hoods, decades after this particular image. did not Since that first image, the Veiled Prophets outfits have varied, as seen in these photographs of the celebrations over decades. The outfits include elaborate robes that are more reminiscent of the Popes regalia. This does not, however, discount the role of the VPO in perpetuating exclusionary practices over the course of its history. photographs A spokesperson for the VPO denied any connection to racist organizations. The source did not initially respond to our queries about their exclusionary policy that admitted Black members into the organization as late as 1979. In a statement, the group said: The VP organization is dedicated to civic progress, economic contributions and charitable causes in St. Louis. Our organization believes in and promotes inclusion, diversity and equality for this region. We absolutely reject racism and have never partnered or associated with any organization that harbors these beliefs. The VPO told us, "Membership in the organization is open to men of all backgrounds and experiences. The organization is committed to diversity and actively seeks members with an interest in community service and a commitment to making St. Louis a better place to live for all." It is inaccurate to refer to Kemper as a KKK princess given that the VPO itself has no known ties to the KKK, even though its role in systems that uphold racism cannot be discounted. The ball and parade have continued in a range of forms since then. The organization today is commonly referred to as the Veiled Prophet Organization (VPO). According to a statement the group sent us and its website, VPO carries out volunteer work and donates to numerous causes: website We are proud of our commitment to support civic St. Louis for 143 years, including: Annually hosting dozens of community service projects and donating tens of thousands of dollars and service hours to support a variety of charity partners to create a stronger, more equitable and prosperous St. Louis, including: Beyond Housing, Mission: St. Louis, Missouri Veterans Endeavor, North Side Community School, Promise Community Homes, Brightside St. Louis, Forest Park Forever, and many others. Making many significant infrastructure and cultural gifts to the City, including lighting of the Eads Bridge, the Mississippi River Overlook and the mile-long Riverfront Promenade, and partnering in providing the Grand Staircase beneath the Arch as part of the National Park System and to the irrigation system as part of Forest Park Forever. Hosting two major free events in St. Louis, including Americas Birthday Parade and Fair St. Louis. Both events reflect the diversity of the St. Louis community and include a wide variety of partners such as PrideFest and the Annie Malone Parade. Kemper came from a wealthy and influential banking family, and she has talked about her upbringing, saying she had a had a very privileged, nice, warm childhood. Her relationship to the organization, which still appears to be influential in St. Louis cultural and social landscape, can be attributed to her social standing and family history. While she may have certainly benefited from her background and privilege, it does not indicate that she is actively a part of upholding racist systems and beliefs. came from On June 7, 2021, Kemper addressed the controversy in a statement on her Instagram account: She added: I unequivocally deplore, denounce, and reject white supremacy. At the same time, I acknowledge that because of my race and my privilege, I am the beneficiary of a system that has dispensed unequal justice and unequal rewards. There is a very natural temptation when you become the subject of internet criticism, to tell yourself that your detractors are getting it all wrong. But at some point last week, I realized that a lot of the forces behind the criticism are forces that I've spent my life supporting and agreeing with. I believe strongly in the values of kindness, integrity and inclusiveness. I try to live my life in accordance with these values. If my experience is an indication that organizations and institutions with pasts that fall short of these beliefs should be held to account, then I have to see this experience in a positive light. Soon after Kemper made her statement, VPO sent us an additional statement, addressing their history of racism and exclusion: Upon reflection, the Veiled Prophet Organization acknowledges our past and recognizes the criticism levied our way. We sincerely apologize for the actions and images from our history. Additionally, our lack of cultural awareness was and is wrong. We are committed to change, allowing our actions to match the organization we are today. The VP Organization of today categorically rejects racism, in any form. Todays VP is committed to diversity and equity in our membership, community service initiatives and support for the region. Our hope is that moving forward, the community sees us for who we are today and together we can move this region forward for everyone. We are, and always will be committed to the success of the region and making St Louis a better place to live for all. The organization itself has no known connection to the KKK but did uphold exclusionary and racist policies within its ranks. It was also a target of protests by the civil rights movement. Kemper participated and won a title in the annual ball, decades after it admitted its first Black members. While the ball and organization play a role in a long history of racism in the United States, which implicates many institutions, there is no evidence tying this group to the KKK, nor any evidence that Kemper is actively racist herself. As such, we rate this claim a Mixture. June 2, 2021: Updated with ACTION's Percy Green quote. June 3, 2021: Updated with VPO's additional comments. June 8, 2021: Updated with Ellie Kemper's statement, and a follow up statement from the VPO.

['interest']

NEI

Ellie Kemper, known for her roles in Bridesmaids, The Office, and Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt, was at the center of an internet controversy when someone found old photographs of her winning a title at a debutante ball allegedly linked to a white supremacist group in her home city of St. Louis, Missouri.According to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, in 1999, Kemper won the title of Queen of Love and Beauty at the "Veiled Prophet Ball," an annual event for debutantes, that was organized by a society known as the Veiled Prophet Organization (VPO). The ball still takes place in December every year, except in 2020 on account of the pandemic. The VPO was reportedly co-founded in 1878 by a former Confederate officer and historically excluded Black and Jewish people. Originally intended as a celebration for the citys wealthy, the Veiled Prophet Ball and the events surrounding it were, according to one historian, meant to reinforce the elites values over working class activism in the city. The VPO only admitted Black members in 1979.Twitter users also honed in on an image depicting a Veiled Prophet from 1878, which shows a person wearing a white costume and a pointed hat. The image was eerily similar to the white robes and hood worn by the white supremacist organization the Ku Klux Klan (KKK). Many started calling Kemper the KKK princess alleging ties between the VPO and the KKK and highlighting the racist history behind the VPOs activities.It began in 1878, when a group of prominent businessmen formed an organization that instituted an annual ball and parade, which was presided over by a mysterious Veiled Prophet. This was usually one member of the organization in disguise, whose identity was not meant to be revealed. The parade ostensibly was meant to generate pride and interest in St. Louis as a prominent city. At the ball, daughters of Veiled Prophet members were presented and the Veiled Prophet would select one to reign as the Queen of Love and Beauty.The idea for this organization is commonly attributed to two brothers, Confederate Colonel Alonzo Slayback and his brother, Charles Slayback, a Confederate cavalryman. According to an essay in The Common Reader, a monthly publication by Washington University in St. Louis, the Veiled Prophet was drawn from a poem by Thomas Moore titled The Story of the Veiled Prophet of Khorassan, found in the book of poetry Lalla Rookh, published in 1817. The prophet in the poem is a wealthy man from the East, who is rewarded with opulent receptions wherever he goes.Academics interpret the Veiled Prophet of the poem as a symbol of moral depravity, however, who rapes and corrupts the beautiful and virtuous high priestess Zelica, allegedly the inspiration for the Queen of Love and Beauty.The Veiled Prophet in St. Louis, according to a book the organization published in 1928, is meant to be a beloved despot, evasive but real, who rules with an iron hand encased in velvet. The organizations interpretation of the Veiled Prophet showed him as a symbol of moral rectitude.According to historian Thomas Spencers book The St. Louis Veiled Prophet Celebration: Power on Parade, 1877-1995, the parade was the business elites response to the workers strike of 1877, meant to awe the masses towards passivity with its symbolic show of power.But it was civil rights protests from the 1960s to the 1980s that made people of the city perceive the parade and ball as wasteful and conspicuous consumption. Black activists with the Action Committee to Improve Opportunities for Negroes (ACTION) protested the events. An integrated group with Black leadership and white members who helped them get access to spaces normally off limits to minorities, the group carried out direct action protests, and sought economic justice through more jobs for minorities. By protesting the parade and ball, they were targeting big businessmen and corporations.They also held parody balls which mocked the largely white Veiled Prophet events and crowned a Black Queen of Human Justice. In 1972, ACTION even managed to infiltrate a ball through three white women members who obtained tickets. According to The Common Reader:During this period of civil rights protests, the parade avoided Black neighborhoods on its route. ACTION's ultimate goal was to pressure business leaders to give jobs to more Black people. Members of ACTION also lay down in front of parade floats, chained themselves to floats and distributed leaflets, and reportedly picketed the balls with signs like VEILED PROFIT$ or VP=KKK. Percy Green, an activist behind ACTION said of the Veiled Prophet ball, parade, and the businessmen involved, "No wonder these people dont hire Blacks because they are socially involved in these all-white organizations [...]." Indeed, the organization remained primarily white until 1979 when it admitted its first Black members, who were three doctors. Older members reportedly insisted that the doctors were admitted because they had earned their place among the elite.Rumors of a connection with the KKK grew from the first available image of a Veiled Prophet from an 1878 issue of the Missouri Republican, which shows a figure dressed in white robes with a pointed cap.The image does not actually indicate the VPO was connected to the KKK. The KKK did not use this uniform until the early 1900s, when the 1915 film The Birth of a Nation depicted the white robes and hoods. Around 1921, the KKK was mass-producing similar white robes and hoods, decades after this particular image.Since that first image, the Veiled Prophets outfits have varied, as seen in these photographs of the celebrations over decades. The outfits include elaborate robes that are more reminiscent of the Popes regalia. This does not, however, discount the role of the VPO in perpetuating exclusionary practices over the course of its history.The ball and parade have continued in a range of forms since then. The organization today is commonly referred to as the Veiled Prophet Organization (VPO). According to a statement the group sent us and its website, VPO carries out volunteer work and donates to numerous causes:Kemper came from a wealthy and influential banking family, and she has talked about her upbringing, saying she had a had a very privileged, nice, warm childhood. Her relationship to the organization, which still appears to be influential in St. Louis cultural and social landscape, can be attributed to her social standing and family history. While she may have certainly benefited from her background and privilege, it does not indicate that she is actively a part of upholding racist systems and beliefs.

Handgun Safety and Registration Act

['Would a pending Senate bill require that all handgun owners list their guns on federal income tax returns?']

Claim: A bill currently before Congress would require that all handgun owners list their guns on federal income tax returns. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2009] Senate Bill SB-2099 will require us to put on our 2009 1040 federal tax form all guns that you have or own. It may requirefingerprints and a tax of $50 per gun. This bill was introduced on Feb. 24. This bill will become public knowledge 30 days after it is voted into law. This is an amendment to the Internal Revenue Act of 1986. This means that the Finance Committee can pass this without the Senate voting on it at all. The full text of the proposed amendment is on the U.S. Senate homepage, https://www.senate.gov/ You can find the bill by doing a search by the bill number, SB-2099. Variations: An August 2009 version of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act e-mail combined it with the Blair Holt e-mail that truthfully claims a bill before Congress would prohibit ownership of handguns by those who have not obtained firearms licenses. ownership Origins: The item quoted above about a pending Congressional bill requiring gun owners to list their guns on federal income tax is both outdated and contains a good deal of misinformation. The referenced bill, SB 2099 (the Handgun Safety and Registration Act) is not currently before Congress it was introduced to the Senate back in February 2000 (not 2009), and it was referred to the Committee on Finance, where it languished without ever coming to a vote. It also had no provisions for requiring handgun owners to list their guns on federal income tax returns. The issue back in 2000 was Senate Bill 2099, introduced in February of that year by Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island. S. 2099 was titled the "Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000" and sought "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, and for other purposes." Senate Bill 2099 Jack Reed The National Firearms Act of 1934 established (among other things) a tax on both the manufacture and the transfer of firearms, required that each person who transfers a firearm file an application National Firearms Act (complete with photograph and fingerprints) with the internal revenue authorities, and authorized the creation of "a central registry of all firearms in the United States which are not in the possession or under the control of the United States." However, the definition of "firearm" used by the 1934 act did not include standard rifles, shotguns, or handguns. It applied only to specialized weapons such as short-barrelled rifles and shotguns, machine guns, silencers, and other "destructive devices" (e.g., grenades, bombs, rockets, missiles, mines). S. 2099 would have expanded the definition of "firearm" to include handguns, thus subjecting them to these requirements as well. The upshot of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act, if passed, would have been the imposition of a $50 tax on the manufacture of all handguns, a requirement that all gun owners register their handguns within one year of the Act's passage (but not, as claimed, list them on their federal income tax returns), and the provision that registration information be made available to federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies. In practical terms, every handgun owner would have had to obtain a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms registration form and an FBI fingerprint form, then complete and submit both forms (along with a 2x2 of himself and a $5 payment) to the BATF. That the intent of this bill was to effect nationwide registration of handguns is unmistakable. As stated in apress release about Senator Reed's bill: press release The bill would require registration of all handguns, including those currently in private possession, and would make it a felony for any person to transfer a handgun to another individual without prior law enforcement approval. Background checks would be performed on all primary and secondary transfers of handguns, including retail sales, gun shows, Internet sales and all private sales. The claim that this bill could have been passed into law without Congress voting upon it was not true: The Handgun Safety and Registration Act, like any other Congressional bill, would have had to be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President (or passed again over his veto) in order to become law. Furthermore, the $50 tax specified in the bill would have applied only to gun manufacturers, not gun owners. As noted above, the Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000 languished in committee without ever being brought to a vote, and even Senator Reed himself said at the time he submitted the bill that he was not optimistic about its chances of success: I am under no illusion that this legislation will be approved by this Congress or next Congress ... But we must begin the process to create a law that Americans overwhelmingly believe is necessary. Additional information: Misleading E-mail (gunregistration.org) Last updated: 13 August 2009

['income']

False

Variations: An August 2009 version of the Handgun Safety and Registration Act e-mail combined it with the Blair Holt e-mail that truthfully claims a bill before Congress would prohibit ownership of handguns by those who have not obtained firearms licenses.The issue back in 2000 was Senate Bill 2099, introduced in February of that year by Senator Jack Reed, a Democrat from Rhode Island. S. 2099 was titled the "Handgun Safety and Registration Act of 2000" and sought "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to require the registration of handguns, and for other purposes." The National Firearms Act of 1934 established (among other things) a tax on both the manufacture and the transfer of firearms, required that each person who transfers a firearm file an application That the intent of this bill was to effect nationwide registration of handguns is unmistakable. As stated in apress release about Senator Reed's bill: Misleading E-mail (gunregistration.org)

Is Biden's Logo a Reference to China's 'Three Red Banners'?

['Conspiracies are often in the eye of the beholder. ']

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, messages started to circulate on social media claiming that the three red stripes on Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's logo were a reference to the so-called "three red banners" that outlined the socialist policies of Mao Zedong, the chairman of the Communist Party of China in the 1950s: This is a genuine image of one of the logos the Biden-Harris ticket has used in their campaign as well as a genuine screenshot (to the right) from a Wikipedia page about the three red banners. However, the logic used to connect these two dots Mao described a portion of his socialist policies as "three red banners," therefore, items with three red stripes are about socialism does not hold up under the lightest scrutiny. three red banners For starters, "three red banners" is a reference to an ideological philosophy, not a specific visual design. In other words, China did not have a physical flag representing the three red banners in a similar fashion displayed on Biden's logo. This claim is attempting to connect a textual description of a 1950s policy with a visual representation of the letter "E" in the campaign logo. Here's how QZ described Mao's "three red banners": described The long history of Chinas obsession with numbered policies starts with Mao. The Three Red Bannersthe General Line for socialist construction, the Great Leap Forward and the peoples communeslaid out how Maos socialist policies would transform China. But they are the de facto culprits of the Great Famine, Yang said. The first banner is an ideological slogan that calls on Chinese people to build a socialist state. The Great Leap Forward, initiated by Mao in 1958, aims to transfer China into an industrialized country. And the peoples communes put households together in rural areas where they shared everything from food to farm tools a way to discount individuality and centralize more manpower and resources for agricultural and industrial production. The claim that Biden's logo is a reference to the socialist policies of Mao in China during the 1950s is based solely on the fact that Biden's logo contains three red lines. As the "three red banners" does not refer to any specific visual design, one could connect these socialist policies to any item adorned with three red stripes. By this logic, anybody living in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Ohio, or working for the New York City Fire Department could be labeled a communist as these entities all use flags containing three red stripes. Hawaii Puerto Rico Ohio New York City Fire Department In addition to the logical flaws of this comparison, Mekanism, the ad agency that created Biden's logo, has already explained what this logo is supposed to symbolize. explained Aimee Brodbeck, the company's designer and art director who led the team that created the logo, said that the stripes and the colors of the logo were nods to the American flag. More specifically, Brodbeck explained that the three stripes represent the three branches of the U.S. government. explained "The logo is approachable and strong, just like the Biden name. By incorporating nods to the American flag, the logo is a representation of Biden's investment in America. The 3 stripes represent the branches of government and the strength of unity with Biden. The logo also nods to the familiarity of the Obama "O" logo where 3 stripes are seen. Smith, Lilly. "Experts Weigh in on the Biden-Harris Logo: 'It Could be Scribbled on a Napkin and I'd be Happy." Fast Company. 12 August 2020. Hofford, Alex. "Charted: Chinas Great Famine, According to Yang Jisheng, a Journalist Who Lived Through It." QZ. 10 March 2016.

['investment']

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 is a genuine image of one of the logos the Biden-Harris ticket has used in their campaign as well as a genuine screenshot (to the right) from a Wikipedia page about the three red banners. However, the logic used to connect these two dots Mao described a portion of his socialist policies as "three red banners," therefore, items with three red stripes are about socialism does not hold up under the lightest scrutiny.Here's how QZ described Mao's "three red banners":As the "three red banners" does not refer to any specific visual design, one could connect these socialist policies to any item adorned with three red stripes. By this logic, anybody living in Hawaii, Puerto Rico, Ohio, or working for the New York City Fire Department could be labeled a communist as these entities all use flags containing three red stripes. In addition to the logical flaws of this comparison, Mekanism, the ad agency that created Biden's logo, has already explained what this logo is supposed to symbolize.Aimee Brodbeck, the company's designer and art director who led the team that created the logo, said that the stripes and the colors of the logo were nods to the American flag. More specifically, Brodbeck explained that the three stripes represent the three branches of the U.S. government.

Is Snapchat Building a Facial Recognition Database for the Feds?

['Online conspiracy theorists claim Snapchat\'s image filter feature called "Lenses" is covertly amassing a database of users\' faces to share with law enforcement agencies.']

One of the more whimsical messaging options offered by Snapchat a social media app for mobile devices introduced in 2011 is the ability to personalize selfies in real time and share them instantly with other users, a feature that has at once contributed to the app's immense popularity (Snapchat boasts an estimated 166 million users daily) and raised privacy concerns among some of its customers. Snapchat's rotating toolbox of image filters, called Lenses, enables users to manipulate photos and videos to humorous effect, as seen in these examples shared publicly on Instagram by celebrity Snapchatter Chrissy Teigen: Cute and innocent though it may appear, the feature has become the target of conspiracy theorists claiming that Snapchat's corporate owner, Snap Inc., uses it to collect facial recognition data which it allegedly stores and shares with law enforcement agencies such as the FBI and CIA. We've found examples of such rumors dating back to Fall 2015 (soon after the Lenses feature was officially rolled out): you guys are all swooning over the snapchat filters... And The FBI is getting the most extensive facial recognition library ever TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015 October 3, 2015 It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: tweet flat-earth when you realize all the snap chat filters are really building a facial recognition database ? B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016 April 16, 2016 In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information". lawsuit BIPA The company flatly denied it: denied Contrary to the claims of this frivolous lawsuit, we are very careful not to collect, store, or obtain any biometric information or identifiers about our community. The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work: arbitration stated Have you ever wondered how Lenses make your eyes well up with tears or rainbows come out your mouth? Some of the magic behind Lenses is object recognition. Object recognition is an algorithm designed to understand the general nature of things that appear in an image. It lets us know that a nose is a nose or an eye is an eye. But object recognition isnt the same as facial recognition. While Lenses can recognize faces in general, they can't recognize a specific face. If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.) case As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to: this Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database: states Snapchat lets you capture what its like to live in the moment. On our end, that means that we automatically delete the content of your Snaps (the photo and video messages that you send your friends) from our servers after we detect that a Snap has been opened by all recipients or has expired. And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist. reports Some rumors die hard, however. An updated variant that cropped up in early 2017 brought two new claims to the mix: one, that the FBI literally created Snapchat's image filtering software (and alleged facial recognition database); and two, that there is a smoking gun to prove it namely U.S. patent #9396354: granted According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings. analysis There is a catch. Implementation of the process would, of course, require amassing a facial recognition database. "For facial recognition to work," writes Booth, "Snapchat would need to store images of all users that sign up to the feature as a reference image to compare photos against." So, there it is a "facial recognition database" of the sort conspiracy theorists have been going on about since 2015, except that Snapchat has not, to date, implemented such a feature (a fact we were able to confirm with the company), nor is there evidence that the FBI (or any other law enforcement agency) was involved in creating it, nor does the patent itself mention sharing facial recognition data with government entities. Despite finding no legitimate basis for the claim that Snapchat is currently engaged in collecting, storing, or sharing facial recognition data on its users, we do not wish to downplay the increasing prevalence of facial recognition technology in both commercial and government applications, nor the privacy issues this raises. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology: report The newly released report raises serious concerns about how companies are collecting, using, and storing our most sensitive personal information. I believe that all Americans have a fundamental right to privacy, which is why it's important that, at the very least, the tech industry adopts strong, industry-wide standards for facial recognition technology. But what we really need are federal standards that address facial recognition privacy by enhancing our consumer privacy framework. The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google. watchdogs lawsuits One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated. already report disproportionate In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans: testimony Face recognition and its accompanying privacy concerns are not going away. Given this, it is imperative that government act now to limit unnecessary biometrics collection; instill proper protections on data collection, transfer, and search; ensure accountability; mandate independent oversight; require appropriate legal process before government collection; and define clear rules for data sharing at all levels. This is important to preserve the democratic and constitutional values that are bedrock to American society. Booth, Alison. "Snapchat Turns Facial Recognition Technology on Its Head." Naked Security. 20 July 2016. Danley-Greiner, Kristin. "Snapchat Defends Procedures After Facial Recognition Class Action." Legal Newsline. 2 September 2016. Garvie, Clare et al. "The Perpetual Line-up: Unregulated Police Face Recognition in America." Georgetown Law Center on Privacy & Technology. 18 October 2016. Graham, Meg. "Illinois Biometrics Lawsuits May Help Define Rules for Facebook, Google." Chicago Tribune. 13 January 2017. Korte, Amy. "Federal Court in Illinois Rules Biometric Privacy Lawsuit Against Google Can Proceed." Illinois Policy. 8 March 2017. Maass, Dave. "Memo to the DOJ: Facial Recognition's Threat to Privacy Is Worse than Anyone Thought." Electronic Frontier Foundation. 18 October 2016. Mathies, Daven. "The Incredible Underlying Technology of Snapchat's Selfie Lenses." Digital Trends. 1 July 2016. Nelson, Steven. "Half of U.S. Adults Are in Police Facial Recognition Networks." US News & World Report. 18 October 2016. Roberts, Jeff John. "Tech Industry's Facial Recognition Plan Bashed by Privacy Groups." Fortune. 16 June 2016. Thielman, Sam. "FBI Using Vast Public Photo Data and Iffy Facial Recognition Tech to Find Criminals." The Guardian. 15 June 2016. Trujillo, Mario. "Facial Recognition Quietly Taking Hold." The Hill. 1 August 2015. Welinder, Yana. "EFF Urges Congress to Protect Privacy in Face Recognition." Electronic Frontier Foundation. 18 July 2012. Yakowicz, Will. "Snapchat Sued Under Illinois Biometric Information Usage Law." Inc. 18 July 2016. Electronic Frontier Foundation. "Testimony of Jennifer Lynch to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary Subcommittee on Privacy, Technology, and the Law." 18 July 2012. Google. "Patent: Apparatus and Method for Automated Privacy Protection in Distributed Images - US 9396354 B1." 19 July 2016. Government Accounting Office. "Facial Recognition Technology: Commercial Uses, Privacy Issues, and Applicable Federal Law." 20 June 2015. U.S. Senate. "Sen. Franken: New Report on Facial Recognition Technology Highlights Lack of Privacy Standards." 30 July 2015. U.S. Senate. "Sen. Franken Releases Extensive Report Detailing Concerns with FBI Facial Recognition Program." 15 June 2016.

['share']

False

TEENWOLF (@TEENWOLFREMIX) October 3, 2015It wasn't until April of the following year that the rumors reached takeoff speed, however, thanks largely to a tweet composed by hip hop artist, songwriter, and unabashed flat-earth theorist B.o.B to his roughly two million followers: B.o.B (@bobatl) April 16, 2016In May 2016, with civil cases already pending against Facebook and Google alleging unauthorized use of facial recognition technology, a class action lawsuit was filed by two Snapchat users in Illinois complaining that the app violated their rights under the state's Biometric Information Privacy Act (BIPA) by failing to obtain adequate permission before gathering and storing their "biometric identifiers and biometric information".The company flatly denied it:The class action suit was eventually dismissed in favor of arbitration in September 2016, but as of this writing the case remains unresolved. Crucial to Snapchat's defense is their position, as stated in the Privacy Center of the company's web site, that the app relies on object recognition, not facial recognition, to make Lenses work:If it's true that Lenses can't recognize (i.e., identify) specific faces, then the claim that the app produces anything qualifying as a "biometric identifier" under Illinois law is seriously in doubt. (The district judge in Illinois overseeing the Google facial recognition case previously defined "biometric identifier" as "a set of biology-based measurements ... used to identify a person.)As to the wider claim that Snapchat is building a "facial recognition database," the distinction between object and facial recognition, at minimum, places a burden of proof on those trumpeting the claim to show that the app is capable of identifying specific faces in the first place. If this explanation (provided by the web site Vox) of how the software works is accurate, Snapchat doesn't need to be able to identify specific faces to accomplish the task. It has to recognize a face as a face, and identify the parts of a face as the nose, eyes, ears, chin, etc., but it doesn't have to recognize who the face belongs to:Moreover, Snapchat's Privacy Policy states that the company neither collects nor permanently stores user-created content (meaning photos and videos) let alone preserves such items in a database:And although the policy further acknowledges that Snap Inc. may share users' personal information "to comply with any valid legal process, governmental request, or applicable law, rule, or regulation" (and transparency reports show that the company has indeed complied with such requests in the past), they can't grant the FBI (or any other agency) access to a "facial recognition database" that doesn't exist.According to an analysis by Sophos' Naked Security blogger Alison Booth, the patent proposes using facial recognition software to identify individual subjects in photos, whereupon the latter would be modified and/or their distribution restricted in accordance with the subjects' pre-established privacy settings.Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota) articulated some of these issues in a statement announcing the release of a 2015 Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the privacy implications of the technology:The tech industry has yet to address these concerns to the satisfaction of consumer privacy watchdogs, however, nor has Congress made progress toward establishing the federal standards Franken called for. Thus far, issue has been dealt with primarily in the court system via cases such as the aforementioned BIPA class action lawsuits against Facebook and Google.One of the ironies of the false alarms about Snapchat's alleged sharing of facial recognition data with the FBI is that the agency already maintains a biometric data network comprising the facial images of more than 117 million Americans (about half the U.S. adult population, and growing), mostly drawn from state DMV databases and other non-criminal sources. A 2016 report by the Georgetown Law Center for Privacy and Technology warned that the technology is both error-prone, with a disproportionate impact on communities of color, and almost totally unregulated.In testimony before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing chaired by Sen. Franken in 2012, Electronic Frontier Foundation attorney Jennifer Lynch urged Congress to act sooner rather than later to protect the biometric privacy of all Americans:

Was it necessary for the Trump Campaign to provide refunds for recurring donations?

['A report by The New York Times outlines Trump donors who were surprised to find their bank accounts drained.']

In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked about social media posts and memes that claimed that former U.S. President Donald Trump "tricked" them into making recurring campaign donations. For instance, one such meme said contributors to the campaign who though they were making a one-time donation "were unaware the fine print stated they would be billed the same amount every single week until election day." Donald Trump In many cases, these claims are rather exaggerated, mean-spirited takes on a New York Times story, as we will explain below. As we previously reported, it's true that the Trump campaign was soliciting recurring donations with a pre-checked box, even after the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election. It's also true that many Trump supporters demanded refunds from the Trump campaign, although it seems mathematically impossible that the number of people who requested refunds was in the millions (as was claimed in social media posts). New York Times story previously reported The April 3 Times report details the experience of Trump donor Stacy Blatt, a retiree who was in hospice care, suffering from cancer, when he discovered his bank account depleted from those recurring donations. Stacy Blatt was in hospice care last September listening to Rush Limbaughs dire warnings about how badly Donald J. Trumps campaign needed money when he went online and chipped in everything he could: $500. It was a big sum for a 63-year-old battling cancer and living in Kansas City on less than $1,000 per month. But that single contribution federal records show it was his first ever quickly multiplied. Another $500 was withdrawn the next day, then $500 the next week and every week through mid-October, without his knowledge until Mr. Blatts bank account had been depleted and frozen. When his utility and rent payments bounced, he called his brother, Russell, for help. What the Blatts soon discovered was $3,000 in withdrawals by the Trump campaign in less than 30 days. They called their bank and said they thought they were victims of fraud. Contrary to the takes offered in partisan memes and posts, Blatt and others like him were not "low IQ," but instead, fell victim to the complicated and evolving wording in a pre-checked box on Trump's online donation portal, according to the Times. As a result, the Times reported, the Trump campaign and WinRed, a for-profit company that processed the online donations, were forced to issue $122 million in campaign contribution refunds to people like Blatt. pre-checked box As Election Day neared in November 2020, the Times report described what amounted to a sense of panic that cropped up inside the Trump campaign, as Democrats out-raised and spent them. During that time, the text on the online donation portal for Trump's donation website changed from simply asking donors to make donations a monthly gift, to including a pre-checked box with more complicated text that made donations weekly. asking donors As the election drew closer, text in that bright yellow box went from containing a pre-checked field that in March 2020 simply said, "Make this a monthly recurring donation," to more complicated and emphatic demands by late 2020 that contained fake ultimatums. As of Sept. 30, 2020, the box looked like this: looked like this As the pre-checked box evolved, the result was an increase in refunds issued to donors who had missed the finer print in the box that allowed the refunds to be weekly recurring. The refunds issued by the Trump campaign outpaced and dwarfed the $21 million in refunds issued by his political rival, now-U.S. President Joe Biden. The effect can be seen in a graph posted by Shane Goldmacher, the Times report's author: The evolution of the text in the box on Trump's online donation portal can be viewed by clicking on various dates via the Internet Archive. Internet Archive A search for Blatt's name can be found on OpenSecrets.org, a campaign finance transparency tool run by the nonpartisan organization Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. It confirms the Times reporting that Blatt, who listed himself as retired, was billed $500 multiple times by the Trump campaign between mid-September and October 11, 2020. Sadly, Blatt died of cancer in February 2021, according to the Times. found on OpenSecrets.org We sent emails to WinRed and the Trump campaign seeking comment, but didn't get an answer in time for publication. We will update if we do. But we note that in their public statements responding to the Times story that neither Trump nor WinRed refute the financial figures or facts laid out by the Times. Instead, the stance taken by both WinRed and Trump is that the Times' report was unfairly negative about their approach to fundraising. In a series of tweets, WinRed called the Times report a "hit piece" and said WinRed's practices were comparable to that of ActBlue, the fundraising portal that serves Democratic candidates. "So when Republicans do it to stay competitive, its nefarious, and when Dems - who created the technology - do it, its a 'platform for little experiments that gently squeeze even more money out of donors,'" WinRed tweeted. called tweeted In a statement responding to the report, Trump referenced his pre- and post-election disinformation campaign, namely false claims that the 2020 election was beset by a massive-scale voter fraud conspiracy. Like WinRed, Trump said his own fundraising efforts were based on those of ActBlue, and also like WinRed, he claimed that the percentage of donors who formally disputed the charges with their financial institutions was low: statement We learned from liberal ActBlue and now were better than they are! In fact, many people were so enthusiastic that they gave over and over, and in certain cases where they would give too much, we would promptly refund their contributions. Our overall dispute rate was less than 1% of total online donations, a very low number. This is done by Dems also The Times story reported that WinRed "typically granted [refunds] to avoid more costly formal disputes." It also pointed out that while WinRed is a for-profit company, ActBlue is a non-profit organization. As such, WinRed "makes its money by taking 30 cents of every donation, plus 3.8 percent of the amount given. WinRed was paid more than $118 million from federal committees the last election cycle; even after paying credit card fees and expenses like payroll and rent, the profits are believed to be significant." We reached out to ActBlue for a response to WinRed and Trump's comments. A spokesperson told us by email that the average contribution amount across the platform in 2019-2020 was $38.08. The spokesperson also referred to this portion of the Times report that included a statement by ActBlue: was $38.08 ActBlue said in a statement that it had begun to phase out prechecked recurring boxes unless groups were explicitly asking for recurring contributions. Some prominent Democratic groups, including both congressional campaign committees, continue to precheck recurring boxes regardless of that guidance. Still, Democratic refund rates were only a small fraction of the Trump campaigns last year. On April 7, 2021, Timothy Miller, a writer for the political news site The Bulwark, tweeted that he received a fundraising text from the National Republican Congressional Committee with a similar, pre-checked fundraising box: Despite aggressive efforts to pursue claims of widespread voter fraud, no evidence was ever presented by the Trump camp that widespread fraud occurred in the 2020 election. Biden won by 7 million votes and 74 electoral college points. widespread voter fraud won

['profit']

True

In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked about social media posts and memes that claimed that former U.S. President Donald Trump "tricked" them into making recurring campaign donations. For instance, one such meme said contributors to the campaign who though they were making a one-time donation "were unaware the fine print stated they would be billed the same amount every single week until election day."In many cases, these claims are rather exaggerated, mean-spirited takes on a New York Times story, as we will explain below. As we previously reported, it's true that the Trump campaign was soliciting recurring donations with a pre-checked box, even after the Nov. 3, 2020, presidential election. It's also true that many Trump supporters demanded refunds from the Trump campaign, although it seems mathematically impossible that the number of people who requested refunds was in the millions (as was claimed in social media posts).Contrary to the takes offered in partisan memes and posts, Blatt and others like him were not "low IQ," but instead, fell victim to the complicated and evolving wording in a pre-checked box on Trump's online donation portal, according to the Times. As a result, the Times reported, the Trump campaign and WinRed, a for-profit company that processed the online donations, were forced to issue $122 million in campaign contribution refunds to people like Blatt.As Election Day neared in November 2020, the Times report described what amounted to a sense of panic that cropped up inside the Trump campaign, as Democrats out-raised and spent them. During that time, the text on the online donation portal for Trump's donation website changed from simply asking donors to make donations a monthly gift, to including a pre-checked box with more complicated text that made donations weekly.As the election drew closer, text in that bright yellow box went from containing a pre-checked field that in March 2020 simply said, "Make this a monthly recurring donation," to more complicated and emphatic demands by late 2020 that contained fake ultimatums. As of Sept. 30, 2020, the box looked like this:The evolution of the text in the box on Trump's online donation portal can be viewed by clicking on various dates via the Internet Archive.A search for Blatt's name can be found on OpenSecrets.org, a campaign finance transparency tool run by the nonpartisan organization Center for Responsive Politics, which tracks money in politics. It confirms the Times reporting that Blatt, who listed himself as retired, was billed $500 multiple times by the Trump campaign between mid-September and October 11, 2020. Sadly, Blatt died of cancer in February 2021, according to the Times.In a series of tweets, WinRed called the Times report a "hit piece" and said WinRed's practices were comparable to that of ActBlue, the fundraising portal that serves Democratic candidates. "So when Republicans do it to stay competitive, its nefarious, and when Dems - who created the technology - do it, its a 'platform for little experiments that gently squeeze even more money out of donors,'" WinRed tweeted.In a statement responding to the report, Trump referenced his pre- and post-election disinformation campaign, namely false claims that the 2020 election was beset by a massive-scale voter fraud conspiracy. Like WinRed, Trump said his own fundraising efforts were based on those of ActBlue, and also like WinRed, he claimed that the percentage of donors who formally disputed the charges with their financial institutions was low:We reached out to ActBlue for a response to WinRed and Trump's comments. A spokesperson told us by email that the average contribution amount across the platform in 2019-2020 was $38.08. The spokesperson also referred to this portion of the Times report that included a statement by ActBlue:Despite aggressive efforts to pursue claims of widespread voter fraud, no evidence was ever presented by the Trump camp that widespread fraud occurred in the 2020 election. Biden won by 7 million votes and 74 electoral college points.

Did a Drag Queen in a 'Demonic' Outfit Read a Sexually Explicit Book to Children at a Public Library?

['Right-wing web sites used alarmist language and false claims to describe a reading event at a California library.']

In October 2017, right-wing websites reported with a significant degree of alarm that a drag queen in a "Satan-inspired costume" had read to children at a California public library associated with former First Lady Michelle Obama. In their headline, Conservative Fighters falsely claimed that Xochi Mochi had read a "sexually explicit" book to the children. World News Daily reported: "The Michelle Obama public library in Long Beach, California, has presented to children who are part of its young readers program a huge array of diversity and inclusion agendas." It was during Xochi Mochi's visit that the program was described as pro-LGBTQ, transgender, drag queen-friendly, and Satanist-approved, with characters featuring red-tipped, demon-like horns, all to read to children for LGBTQ History Month. The right-wing Media Research Center wrote: "In a nightmare-inducing vision that's likely spawned years of intense psychological therapy, children at the Michelle Obama Public Library in Venice Beach, California, were forced to endure being read kids' books by a five-horned drag queen in the most terrifying clown makeup known to man. And no, not for Halloween. For diversity." Setting aside the alarmist language used to describe this event, the Los Angeles drag performer Xochi Mochi (also known as Jorge Alcantar) did read to children at the Michelle Obama Neighborhood Library in Long Beach, California, on October 14. The reading was part of a series called Drag Queen Story Hour, which is run by the writer Michelle Tea and the literary and arts non-profit Radar Productions. Here's how the Drag Queen Story Hour website describes the project: "

['profit']

NEI

In their headline, Conservative Fighters falsely claimed that Xochi Mochi had read a "sexually explicit" book to the children. World News Daily reported:The right-wing Media Research Center wrote:The reading was part of a series called Drag Queen Story Hour, which is run by the writer Michelle Tea and the literary and arts non-profit Radar Productions. Here's how the Drag Queen Story Hour web site describes the project:The photograph used in the reports mentioned above is authentic, and was posted to Facebook and Instagram by Xochi Mochi, who added:Long Beach Public Library also posted the photograph to its Twitter account, but has since deleted that tweet. (An archived version can be viewed here.)Republican candidate for Congress Omar Navarro asked in a tweet "what are we teaching kids in school?" and claimed the photograph of Xochi Mochi showed "demonic teachings." Setting aside the fact that the event took place at a library, not a school, the book Xochi Mochi is reading in the photograph is Todd Parr's children's book "It's Okay to be Different," which includes the following lines:Finally, Michelle Obama had no role in the event. The Conservative Fighters web site misleadingly referred to "Michelle Obama's public library" in its headline, suggesting that the former First Lady owns or operates the institution. She doesn't, but the library was named in her honor in September 2016.

Did an article from 1933 state that Hitler would not cause turmoil in Germany?

['Events always seem more obvious and predictable after they have already taken place.']

In perhaps one of the worst miscalculations in modern political history, Adolf Hitler was appointed chancellor of Germany in January 1933 in the hopes that he could successfully form a coalition government amidst a collection of competing minority parties (including his own Nazi Party) and that the worst impulses of Hitler and the Nazis could be "controlled" or "tamed" once they bore responsibility for leading the national government (rather than criticizing others' administration of it). But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on January 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president. One example of the naiveté that held sway in Germany at that time caught the attention of Americans in February 2020, in the wake of impeachment proceedings against U.S. President Donald Trump. That example took the form of a snippet from a purported 1933 Wall Street Journal article that was widely circulated via social media: This article did in fact appear in the February 2, 1933, edition of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ). Under the headline "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly," the report from the WSJ's Berlin bureau briefly referenced contemporaneous assessments of Hitler—that "there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power," that Hitler would not "disrupt the nation's affairs," and that it was "not believed" Hitler would "accomplish a change in the constitution"—and that a rise in stock prices indicated public confidence in these assessments: Rise in Stocks Reflects Confidence He Will Not Disrupt Nation's Affairs Berlin is settling down to pass judgment on political developments. Politicians, economists, and bankers declare there is usually wide discrepancy between the speeches of opposition politicians and the actions of the group when it gains power. Consequently, it is not believed that Hitler will accomplish a change in the constitution or that [Reich Minister of Economics Alfred] Hugenberg will bring about a general reduction of interest rates. The government wants to obtain an adjournment of the Reichstag for several months, but it is questionable whether the Centre [Party] will approve of such action. After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months), the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government—including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben, the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust: I.G. Farben The Börse closed with considerable gains in stocks. Rhenish Coal advanced 7, Mannesmann Tube 5, I.G. Farben 4, and Rhine-Westphalia Electric 4. Bonds registered average losses of 2 points. Common stocks were favored as being less susceptible to talk of devaluing the currency or of other inflationary experiments. Furthermore, profits are expected to increase for many industries from expanded public works projects. The Wall Street Journal. "Berlin Views Hitler Calmly." 1 February 1933 (p. 12)

['interest']

True

But shortly after Hitler's swearing-in as chancellor on Jan. 30, 1933, the Nazis began to systematically suspend civil liberties and eliminate political opposition, with the passage of the Enabling Act two months later effectively establishing Hitler's government as a legal dictatorship that could issue decrees without the involvement of the German parliament (Reichstag) or president.After calmly dismissing the threat that Hitler posed (and which would come to pass in just a few short months) the article provided a short summary of the "considerable gains in stocks" that supposedly indicated good times were ahead under the new government -- including, ironically, a rise in the price of stock in I.G. Farben, the German chemical company that manufactured the Zyklon B gas later used to kill millions of Jews during the Holocaust:

Was the Mayor of Minneapolis's decision to cancel the 4th of July fireworks while permitting a Muslim animal sacrifice at Vikings Stadium questioned?

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

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

['budget']

False

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

Deceptive offer of complimentary Dunkin' Donuts voucher

["An online Dunkin' coupon offering that promises a free box of donuts is part of an anniversary giveaway scam."]

Social media users are frequently targeted by anniversary giveaway and survey scams, with one common form of bait being fake coupon offers for free boxes of Dunkin' Donuts: Such scams typically provide links which lead to web pages (not operated or sponsored by Dunkin' Donuts) displaying the Dunkin' logo along with entreaties to spread the scam further by sharing those pages and writing thank you in the comments field. The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends: anniversary survey scam These web pages (which are not operated or sponsored by the companies they reference) typically ask the unwary to click what appear to be Facebook share buttons and post comments to the scammers site (which is really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who follow such instructions are then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two Reward Offers (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards). A representative for Dunkin' Donuts wrote on the company's official Facebook page that the online "free dozen" coupon was not one offered by the chain: The Better Business Bureau issued guidelines warning specifically of identical scams on Facebook that target shoppers: Dont believe what you see. Its easy to steal the colors, logos and header of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure theres a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organizations real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward thats too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website. Promotions

['credit']

False

The free Dunkin' Donuts offers are a variation of the company anniversary survey scam, a ploy that depends on the unwary unwittingly promoting the phony offer to their social media friends:Legitimate Dunkin' Donuts offers are listed in a Promotions page on the company's website.

National Prayer Breakfast Remarks: President Trump vs. President Obama

['An image comparing remarks made by President Trump and former President Obama at National Prayer Breakfasts used genuine quotes, but the implied claim was misleading.']

An image macro purportedly showing two statements, one from former President Obama at the National Prayer Breakfast in 2016 and the other from President Trump at the same event the following year, was circulated on social media in February 2017: The quotes depicted in the image margo are largely accurate, although President Trump's remarks were edited together from a few different portions of his speech. President Obama's speech at the 2016 National Prayer Breakfast is archived at ObamaWhiteHouse.Archive.Gov. The relevant portion of his speech can be seen at around the 1:50 mark of the following video, and we've reproduced the relevant text portion below (the bolded text was omitted from above-displayed graphic): ObamaWhiteHouse.Archive.Gov And on this occasion, I always enjoy reflecting on a piece of scripture thats been meaningful to me or otherwise sustained me throughout the year. And lately, Ive been thinking and praying on a verse from Second Timothy: For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. For God has not given us a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind. President Trump's 2017 National Prayer Breakfast speech was also archived by the White House. The above-displayed image macro condensed a larger portion of President Trump's speech into a brief paragraph. The entire speech can be seen in the following video, and we've reproduced the relevant text portion below (bolded text was omitted from above-displayed graphic): archived Thank you as well to Senate Chaplain Barry Black for his moving words. And I don't know, Chaplain, whether or not thats an appointed position. Is that an appointed position? I dont even know if youre a Democrat or if youre a Republican, but Im appointing you for another year the hell with it. (Laughter and applause.) And I think its not even my appointment, its the Senates appointment, but well talk to them. Your son is here. Your job is very, very secure, okay? (Laughter.) Thank you, Barry. Appreciate it very much. I also want to thank my great friends, though, Roma. Wheres Roma? Beautiful Roma Downey. The voice of an angel. Shes got the voice every time I hear it, that voice is so beautiful. Everything is so beautiful about Roma, including her husband because hes a special, special friend, Mark Burnett for the wonderful introduction. So true. So true. I said to the agent, Im sorry. The only thing more I actually got on the phone and fired him myself because he said, you dont want to do it, itll never work, itll never, ever work. You dont want to do it. I said, listen but I really fired him after it became the number-one show. It became so successful, and he wanted a commission, and he didnt want to do it. Thats what I really said. (Laughter.) But we had tremendous success on "The Apprentice." And when I ran for President, I had to leave the show. Thats when I knew for sure I was doing it. And they hired a big, big movie star Arnold Schwarzenegger to take my place. And we know how that turned out. (Laughter.) The ratings went right down the tubes. Its been a total disaster. And Mark will never, ever bet against Trump again. And I want to just pray for Arnold, if we can, for those ratings, okay? (Laughter.) The gist of this image macro was that President Obama's speech focused on scripture while President Trump's speech focused on TV ratings, but President Trump did talk about other subjects including the death of a U.S. Navy SEAL in Yemen and quote a piece of scripture (John 15:13) during his remarks: No one has inspired me more in my travels than the families of the United States military, men and women who have put their lives on the line every day for their country and their countrymen. I just came back yesterday from Dover Air Force Base to join the family of Chief William Ryan Owens, as Americas fallen hero was returned home. Very, very sad, but very, very beautiful. Very, very beautiful. His family was there. Incredible family, loved him so much. So devastated he was so devastated. But the ceremony was amazing. He died in defense of our nation. He gave his life in defense of our people. Our debt to him and our debt to his family is eternal and everlasting. Greater love hath no man than this: that a man lay down his life for his friends. We will never forget the men and women who wear the uniform, believe me. (Applause.) Thank you. From generation to generation, their vigilance has kept our liberty alive. Our freedom is won by their sacrifice, and our security has been earned with their sweat and blood and tears. God has blessed this land to give us such incredible heroes and patriots. They are very, very special, and we are going to take care of them. (Applause.) One could cherry-pick other portions of both speeches to create the impression that both Presidents Trump and Obama had focused equally on scripture during their remarks: Trump, Donald. "Remarks by President Trump at National Prayer Breakfast." The White House. 2 February 2017. Obama, Barack. "Remarks by the President at National Prayer Breakfast." The White House. 4 February 2016.

['debt']

NEI

President Obama's speech at the 2016 National Prayer Breakfast is archived at ObamaWhiteHouse.Archive.Gov. The relevant portion of his speech can be seen at around the 1:50 mark of the following video, and we've reproduced the relevant text portion below (the bolded text was omitted from above-displayed graphic):President Trump's 2017 National Prayer Breakfast speech was also archived by the White House. The above-displayed image macro condensed a larger portion of President Trump's speech into a brief paragraph. The entire speech can be seen in the following video, and we've reproduced the relevant text portion below (bolded text was omitted from above-displayed graphic):

Danny Trejo Death Hoax

['The popular Los Angeles-born actor did not suddenly pass away at age 74 in September 2018.']

On 9 September 2018, the website Your Daily News published an article headlined "Danny Trejo: The Famous Native American Actor Dies at Age 74." Curiously, however, the article provided no details about the time or manner of Trejo's alleged passing, nor did it even mention Trejo's death; it simply offered a summary of the actor's life and career. Danny Trejo was born Dan Trejo in Echo Park, Los Angeles, to Alice (Rivera) and Dan Trejo, a construction worker. With his intimidating, tattooed, muscle-bound appearance, character actor Danny Trejo has built a successful career as the all-purpose hard case throughout his curious and enduring cinematic journey. Beating the odds of repeat offender syndrome after being released from prison, Trejo has risen through the ranks to find himself in high demand as an actor and has even expanded his talents to include a producer credit on his résumé. That lack of information is not surprising, as the article was a hoax—Danny Trejo is not dead and is still actively posting on social media: "Rest in peace Burt Reynolds. You were an icon and one of my heroes." -DT pic.twitter.com/0fKZhaKpuH Danny Trejo (@officialDannyT) September 6, 2018. The only source reporting Trejo's death in September 2018 was Your Daily News, a site that had only been active for a very short time and, as of this writing, was no longer reachable. Moreover, Trejo himself has previously been the subject of celebrity death hoax rumors, which he has personally disclaimed: "DANNY TREJO IS NOT DEAD." Danny Trejo (@officialDannyT) November 8, 2016.

['credit']

False

Rest in peace Burt Reynolds. You were an icon and one of my heroes. -DT pic.twitter.com/0fKZhaKpuH Danny Trejo (@officialDannyT) September 6, 2018The only source reporting Trejo's death in September 2018 was Your Daily News, a site which had only been active a very short time and as of this writing was no longer reachable.Moreover, Trejo himself has previously been the subject of celebrity death hoax rumors (which he has personally disclaimed): Danny Trejo (@officialDannyT) November 8, 2016

Did Debby Ryan Have a Heart Attack?

["Unfounded rumors concerning Debby Ryan's health were circulated in the wake of the death of her co-star Cameron Boyce. "]

On July 6, 2019, fans of actor Cameron Boyce were shocked and saddened to learn that the 20-year-old Disney star had passed away after experiencing a seizure. As celebrities and fans mourned Boyce's loss on social media, a rumor began to circulate that actress Debby Ryan had suffered a heart attack after hearing the news about her former co-star's death. There was no truth to this unfounded rumor, which was widely disseminated by a viral video posted to YouTube by @Dancetayley and titled "Debby Ryan Rushed to Hospital After Finding Out About Cameron Boyce." The video, which racked up nearly 2 million views within a day of its initial posting, included a number of screenshots of tweets from random people who claimed that Ryan had suffered a heart attack. None of those tweets originated from verified sources, and no credible news outlets reported that Ryan experienced a heart attack. This rumor likely stemmed from the fact that Ryan's voice was absent from the conversation immediately following Boyce's death. While many other co-stars and celebrity friends posted messages on social media mourning Boyce's loss after the news broke, Ryan's social media accounts were largely silent. Fans began to wonder why she hadn't commented yet, and some started to claim without evidence that she had suffered a heart attack. There were, of course, innumerable potential reasons why Ryan didn't immediately post on social media that did not involve a heart attack. For example, she might simply have taken some time to process the news of her co-star's passing. While Ryan didn't immediately post on social media, she did like a tweet posted by actor Charles Esten, who co-starred with Ryan and Boyce on the show Jessie. Ryan, who turned off her Instagram comments following Boyce's death—likely because a large number of fans were continuously reminding her that her friend had just died—also posted a video to her Instagram story of Boyce's acceptance speech for the Pioneering Spirit Award at the 2018 Thirst Gala. Here's the full video of Boyce's acceptance speech. The portion of his speech included in Ryan's post is transcribed below: "It's crazy, we can tweet whenever we want and we can use social media and Instagram and make the world a better place, instead of a worse one, which so many people use it for... We need to use what we have and make the world a better place for other people, people who need us."

['loss']

False

On July 6, 2019, fans of actor Cameron Boyce were shocked and saddened to learn that the 20-year-old Disney star had passed away after experiencing a seizure. As celebrities and fans mourned the loss of Boyce on social media, a rumor began to circulate that actress Debby Ryan had suffered a heart attack after hearing the news about her former co-star's death:There was no truth to this unfounded rumor, which was widely disseminated by a viral video posted to YouTube by @Dancetayley and titled "Debby Ryan Rushed to Hospital After Finding Out About Cameron Boyce." The video, which racked up nearly 2 million views within a day of its initial posting, included a number of screenshots of tweets from random people who claimed that Ryan had suffered a heart attack:This rumor likely stemmed from the fact that Ryan's voice was absent from the conversation immediately following Boyce's death. While many other co-stars and celebrity friends posted messages to social media mourning the loss of Boyce after the news of his death broke, Ryan's social media accounts were largely silent. Fans began to wonder why she hadn't commented yet, and some of them started to claim without evidence that she had suffered a heart attack.While Ryan didn't immediately post to social media, she did like a tweet posted by actor Charles Esten, who co-starred with Ryan and Boyce on the show Jessie:Ryan, who turned off her Instagram comments following Boyce's death (likely because a large number of fans were continuously reminding her that her friend had just died), also posted a video to her Instagram story of Boyces acceptance speech for the Pioneering Spirit award at the 2018 Thirst Gala.

Did Biden affirm that individuals earning less than $400,000 would not have to pay any taxes?

["The Biden administration's tax plan will not raise taxes on people making less than $400,000, but those people will still have to pay taxes. "]

In May 2021, a video started to circulate that supposedly showed U.S. President Joe Biden saying that people making less than $400,000 won't have to pay a single penny in taxes. Joe Biden This is a genuine clip showing a portion of the remarks Biden delivered during a visit to Tidewater Community College in Portsmouth, Virginia, on May 3, 2021. While the president said that people making under $400,000 would not pay a single penny in taxes during these remarks, that is not what is outlined in the Biden administration's tax plan. Biden misspoke here. A more accurate way of representing his tax plan would have been to say that people making under $400,000 would not see their taxes "raised" by a single penny. remarks Biden delivered Here's how Fox News reported on this gaffe: Fox News reported President Biden reiterated his pledge that no American earning less than $400,000 would not pay "a single penny" in additional taxes with a slight twist on Monday, after he proposed several tax increases to fund two sweeping spending plans. Biden appeared to mistakenly leave out a key word during his speech at Tidewater Community College instead saying that no one earning under his specified threshold would pay any taxes. Biden repeatedly promised during his 2020 presidential campaign that people making less than $400,000 "wont pay a penny more in taxes." repeatedly promised 2020 presidential campaign This campaign promise was included in Biden's proposal for the American Families Plan that was released in April 2021: released in April 2021 In all, the American Families Plan includes $1.8 trillion in investments and tax credits for American families and children over ten years. It consists of about $1 trillion in investments and $800 billion in tax cuts for American families and workers. Alongside the American Families Plan, the President will be proposing a set of measures to make sure that the wealthiest Americans pay their share in taxes, while ensuring that no one making $400,000 per year or less will see their taxes go up. When combined with President Bidens American Jobs Plan, this legislation will be fully paid for over 15 years, and will reduce deficits over the long term. Biden has repeatedly promised that people making less than $400,000 would not see their taxes raised under his plan. Although a video that showed him saying that people making less than a $400,000 won't "pay a single penny in taxes" is real, the president clearly misspoke during this portion of his speech.

['taxes']

True

In May 2021, a video started to circulate that supposedly showed U.S. President Joe Biden saying that people making less than $400,000 won't have to pay a single penny in taxes. This is a genuine clip showing a portion of the remarks Biden delivered during a visit to Tidewater Community College in Portsmouth, Virginia, on May 3, 2021. While the president said that people making under $400,000 would not pay a single penny in taxes during these remarks, that is not what is outlined in the Biden administration's tax plan. Biden misspoke here. A more accurate way of representing his tax plan would have been to say that people making under $400,000 would not see their taxes "raised" by a single penny. Here's how Fox News reported on this gaffe:Biden repeatedly promised during his 2020 presidential campaign that people making less than $400,000 "wont pay a penny more in taxes." This campaign promise was included in Biden's proposal for the American Families Plan that was released in April 2021:

Do retailers employ 'vanishing ink' on receipts as a tactic to discourage returns?

['A long-circulating rumor claims retailers use "disappearing ink" to inhibit the return of merchandise or use of warranties.']

The holiday shopping season often spurs rumors that retailers use "disappearing ink" on receipts, making it difficult for consumers to use paid-for warranties or return unserviceable merchandise. Some rumors were more broad, involving anecdotal concerns about "disappearing ink" receipts, addressing retailers: I know you are in business to make money. I know that fraudulent returns cut into your profit margin, so you feel the need to tighten up your return policies. I am totally on board with that. BUT, could you please then stop using disappearing ink on your receipts? I just had my baby shower, and EVERY SINGLE gift receipt from your store was so faded, it was barely legible. Then, you tried to give me a hard time because your computers couldn't read the receipts, therefore making my duplicates off the registry unreturnable (but improper registry maintenance is a whole other issue.) To sum up. You require receipts? Then print legible receipts. Thank you. Others were more specific, claiming very clear timeframes30 to 45 daysand practices governed the legibility of receipt ink. Iterations of that sort asserted companies deliberately sought out to ensure that no receipts past a certain point could be used, presumably rendered void when the ink "disappeared" by design: PLEASE READ: Learned something new tonight...I guess you guys need to be made aware of (if you don't already know)...I was informed this evening after making a purchase with an extended warranty from Wal-Mart that I needed to go home and make a photo copy of the receipt and file with the warranty card. I curiously asked why and the lady told me that Wal-Mart now uses disappearing ink. My jaw dropped. So this means after 30 -45 days moving forward, you will no longer have a legible receipt from Wal-Mart for returns or warranty usage or credit card issues. Heads up guys ! This will be a problem for many ! I understand the reason they gave for this action, but it sure makes for a difficult life for the honest folks in this world. Don't forget to take a picture of your receipts. Disappearing ink is one big snowjob, so be ready for the storm.... 30 days and presto-change o. Although the rumor was rife on Facebook, instances of it far antedated the social network. Forum posts as far back as 2003 referenced the phenomenon. 2003 However, many retailers's return policies stipulate that receipts are not the sole manner in which consumers can prove a purchase. Walmart maintains: maintains Walmart will accept a non-receipted return or exchange provided it meets the following conditions: The refund verification process accepts the return.The government issued ID must not be altered and is accepted by Walmart. To return or exchange items without a receipt, you are required to present a valid government issued photo ID. Information from the customer ID will be stored in a secured database of returns activity that Walmart uses to authorize returns. At Lowe's the policy reads, in part: the policy reads, in part In most instances, your receipt can be retrieved by using the original credit card, checking account number, MyLowe's card or by your phone number. For returns without a valid receipt, in-store credit may be issued for the items current selling price. Lost or stolen gift cards can only be replaced for the remaining balance by presenting the original receipt. Similarly, CVS notes "returns or exchanges are subject to a third-party verification process," suggesting physical paper receipts were not the sole manner in which proof of purchase was retained by the consumer or retailer. The web site CreditCards.com surveyed major retailers and reported that in addition to protections offered by issuers such as American Express and Mastercard, receipts were rarely the only recourse: notes surveyed Our survey of 12 large retailers policies regarding returning items without a receipt shows most allow it within limits. Although a staunch no receipt, no return policy is rare, it does still happen, and there can be individual store quirks that make the return process difficult to predict. Store policies tend to be tiered, with full refunds reserved for those who meet the gold standard: They return the entire item, in its original packaging, quickly, with a receipt. The further you vary from the gold standard, the less you get back. Credit card holders may find that using their cards provides an added avenue to a refund, since some retailers will look up a credit card transaction and let you use that as proof of purchase for a return. As to how youll get your money back, its typical for stores to return it in the same way it was tendered. So if you used a credit card, expect to get the money back in the form of a credit on your cards statement. Retailers' policies stipulating for other verification measures undermined the implication receipt degradation was a deliberate action to discourage store returns. As for why receipts tended to fade (at least under certain conditions), papermaker Panda Paper Roll explained that the effect was a cost-saving measure for different reasons: explained Receipts are typically printed on thermal paper, a chemically coated paper that produces text and image when heat is applied to its surface. Since this kind of paper is susceptible to heat and UV light, extended exposure to these elements will ultimately cause gradual fading. If you are in the mood for experimenting, place a receipt that you dont need under a hot iron for about 10 seconds. The heat from the iron will change the color of paper to black. Oil and humidity are also factors to blame. Now if youre wondering why the use of thermal paper is so widespread despite this massive disadvantage, its because they are very low cost and the equipment used to print it is low maintenance, since it doesnt need ink or ribbon cartridges. That claim was echoed in a since-deleted 2014 WFLA story about "disappearing ink" receipts: story If you keep paper receipts, this could happen to you, too. That's because more retailers are using thermal paper. Heat and light fades the ink. Although it was clearly true that many receipts faded over time, the claim involving "disappearing ink" was a misnomer. Retailers' well-known reliance on thermal paper due to its cost efficient nature led to the generation of fragile receipts, particularly those exposed to heat or light. The phenomenon was real, but the cause was often misinterpreted by concerned consumers. Early iterations of the rumor also antedated the rise of online retail giants, e-receipts, smartphones with storage capabilities, and other technological advances that served effectively as a "receipt" for consumers. Behnken, Shannon. "Sales Receipts Have Ink That Fades, Making Returns Harder." WFLA. 23 June 2014. Cabrera, Kristen. "Major Retailers' 2016 Return And Receipt Policies." CreditCards.com. 22 December 2016. Walmart Help Center. "No Receipt Returns In Stores Policy." Accessed 14 December 2017. Lowe's Service Desk. "Returns and Refunds Policy." Accessed 14 December 2017. CVS.com. "Returns Policy." Accessed 14 December 2017. Panda Paper Roll Company. "Thermal Paper: Why It Fades And How To Restore It." Accessed 14 December 2017.

['profit']

False

Although the rumor was rife on Facebook, instances of it far antedated the social network. Forum posts as far back as 2003 referenced the phenomenon.However, many retailers's return policies stipulate that receipts are not the sole manner in which consumers can prove a purchase. Walmart maintains:At Lowe's the policy reads, in part:Similarly, CVS notes "returns or exchanges are subject to a third-party verification process," suggesting physical paper receipts were not the sole manner in which proof of purchase was retained by the consumer or retailer. The web site CreditCards.com surveyed major retailers and reported that in addition to protections offered by issuers such as American Express and Mastercard, receipts were rarely the only recourse:Retailers' policies stipulating for other verification measures undermined the implication receipt degradation was a deliberate action to discourage store returns. As for why receipts tended to fade (at least under certain conditions), papermaker Panda Paper Roll explained that the effect was a cost-saving measure for different reasons:That claim was echoed in a since-deleted 2014 WFLA story about "disappearing ink" receipts:

Is Carrier owned by Donald Trump or does he own its stock?

['After a high-profile negotiation with Carrier, rumors appeared that President-elect Trump owned a stake in (or all of) the company.']

A negotiation on 30 November 2016 between Donald Trump and the company Carrier aimed to keep approximately 1,000 jobs in the United States. This was soon followed by claims that he either owned or was a shareholder in the company or its parent, United Technologies. As part of its #TrumpLeaks program, the Democratic Coalition Against Trump uncovered the financial disclosures Trump filed in May 2016, which show he owns stock in UT. According to the 104-page financial disclosure form that all candidates running for President are required to complete, Trump made between $2,501 and $5,000 in interest from an investment in United Technologies. The entry in the financial disclosure can be found on page 45 under Part 6. The full financial disclosure is available online. The material quoted above cited the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, which claimed to be pursuing legal action against Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) head James Comey. That group was involved in several questionable efforts against Trump and appeared to exist solely to mount legal and media-based challenges against him. Claims that Trump owned Carrier or stock in United Technologies closely mirrored similar rumors that the President-elect was vested in the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Although the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had at one point owned Carrier or United Technologies stock in 2014 or 2015, his 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure (PFD) did not reflect any such investment. Trump's spokeswoman, Hope Hicks, stated that there was a "goal of the immediate transfer of management of The Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka, and Eric Trump, as well as a team of highly skilled executives." Trump's transition team vowed that any holdings representing potential conflicts of interest would be transferred before his January 2017 inauguration. In early December 2016, additional details about the Carrier deal emerged, including the total number of jobs preserved in the negotiation and a portion slated for outsourcing by the end of 2017.

['investment']

False

A 30 November 2016 negotiation between Donald Trump and the company Carrier in order to keep some 1,000 jobs in the United States was soon followed by claims that he either owned (or was a shareholder in) the company or parent United Technologies:The material quoted above cited the Democratic Coalition Against Trump, which claimed to be pursuing legal action against Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) head James Comey. That group was involved in several questionable efforts against Trump, and appeared to exist solely to mount legal and media-based challenges against him.Claims that Trump owned Carrier or stock in United Technologies closely mirrored similar rumors the President-elect was similarly vested in the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline. Although the Wall Street Journal reported that Trump had at one point owned Carrier or United Technologies stock in 2014 or 2015, his 2016 Personal Financial Disclosure [PFD] did not reflect any such investment:Trump's spokeswoman Hope Hicks said that a "goal of the immediate transfer of management of The Trump Organization and its portfolio of businesses to Donald Jr., Ivanka and Eric Trump as well as a team of highly skilled executives." Trump's transition team vowed that any holdings that represented potential conflicts of interest would be transferred before his January 2017 inauguration. In early December 2016 additional details about the Carrier deal emerged, including the total number of jobs preserved in the negotiation as well as a portion slated for outsourcing by the end of 2017.

Mexican Supermarket Taking 'Donations' for Trump Border Wall

["A faked photograph led to accusations that Soriana markets were making customers foot the bill for one of Donald Trump's campaign promises."]

Not long after Donald Trump's victory in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, an image began circulating online claiming that a Mexican supermarket chain was collecting "donations" toward his proposed border wall between the two countries. On 10 November 2016, a YouTube video claimed to show a picture of a receipt from a Soriana Hiper market in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon that included a 10-peso charge for an "additional donation [for] Trump wall." The image then spread online, with one version containing the caption: a YouTube video online, Look what Soriana is doing. Save the picture and share it before it's deleted. Soriana, which operates more than 800 stores around Mexico, refuted the picture in a statement released on 15 November 2016, saying the photo in question was false and "tendentiously manipulated": The translation reads, in part: We reaffirm our position and commitment with our country as a 100% Mexican company, as one of the biggest job-generators in the country and with an important business platform for our suppliers and commercial partners. Our commitment has always been and will always be with our country, particularly with the Mexican family economy. The "Trump wall" receipt was based off of another fake photo that circulated in 2013, accusing the company of charging customers for a "additional donation" to the Teletn, the annual national fundraiser for childrens' healthcare: 2013 Teletn, One of Trump's campaign promises was that his administration would not only build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but make the latter country pay for it. That statement is still on his campaign website. He has since stated: website. stated It could be some fencing. However, it should be noted that an unmistakable wall already exists along much of the border between Mexico and the United States. wall "Muro de trump esta siendo cobrado en soriana." De Todo Un Poco Consejos Practicos. YouTube. 10 November 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2D1ROTY1SA La Rancherita del Aire, S.A. de C.V. "Circula en redes sociales supuesto ticket de compra con cobro extra por muro de Trump." rancherita.com.mx. 11 November 2016. sdpnoticias.com. "Cobran indebidamente Teletn en tickets de compra." www.tolucanoticias.com. 6 November 2013. Stahl, Lesley. "President-elect Trump speaks to a divided country on 60 Minutes." CBS News. 13 November 2016. Delano, James Whitlow. "This Is What the U.S.-Mexico Border Wall Actually Looks Like." National Geographic. 4 March 2016.

['economy']

False

On 10 November 2016, a YouTube video claimed to show a picture of a receipt from a Soriana Hiper market in Monterrey, Nuevo Leon that included a 10-peso charge for an "additional donation [for] Trump wall." The image then spread online, with one version containing the caption:The "Trump wall" receipt was based off of another fake photo that circulated in 2013, accusing the company of charging customers for a "additional donation" to the Teletn, the annual national fundraiser for childrens' healthcare:One of Trump's campaign promises was that his administration would not only build a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border, but make the latter country pay for it. That statement is still on his campaign website. He has since stated: However, it should be noted that an unmistakable wall already exists along much of the border between Mexico and the United States.

Did Mexico Sign a Major Trade Deal With Argentina to Retaliate Against Trump's Border Wall Plans?

['Mexico is in trade talks with Argentina, but no deal has been finalized; the cost to American farmers would likely be lower than claimed.']

Two of Donald Trump's most prominent 2016 campaign pledges were to build a border wall along the Mexican border (or rather, to reinforce and extend it; a wall already exists along hundreds of miles of the international border), and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 arrangement between the United States, Canada and Mexico which he called "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country." exists arrangement called In October 2017, left-wing Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that Mexico had in retaliation for Trump's border wall plans signed a major agricultural trade agreement with Argentina, which would have very harmful effects on American farmers: meme They're trying to distract us from the fact that Mexico retaliated against the border wall by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of their corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina duty free. This will take away at least $13 billion annually from American farmers. As of 1 November 2017, Mexico and Argentina have not signed an agreement like the one described by "The Other 98%", but the two countries have held talks about a more limited (though still significant) trade deal involving grains and cars. Furthermore, the main catalyst for the negotiations has been the uncertainty caused by Donald Trump's vow to renegotiate NAFTA rather than his plans to build a border wall. The source cited by "The Other 98%" is a September 2017 article by Daily Kos, which reported: Daily Kos Mexico already retaliated against Trump and his insults earlier this year by establishing an agricultural agreement with Argentina. Starting next year Mexico will be buying 100% of her corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina duty free. In exchange Mexico will ship cars to Argentina, duty free. This will taken [sic] away $13 billion annually from American farmers. It's not clear what the source of these claims is, but a similar meme appeared online earlier in 2017, which read: meme Mexico has retaliated against Trump's racial profiling and insistence that Mexico will pay for his border wall. Beginning in 2018, Mexico will be buying its corn, rice, wheat and soy from Argentina. Not America. American farmers stand to lose $13 billion. The ripple effect will be even more devastating. The fact that this announcement was made during Trump's Made in America week, is just karmic icing. "Made in America Week" took place from 17-24 July 2017; we found no evidence of any deal between Mexico and Argentina being announced during that time period. However, talks have been ongoing between the two countries. place In the spring of 2017, Mexico's Deputy Economy Minister Juan Carlos Baker made several comments in interviews about his country's negotiations with Argentina and Brazil. On 26 March 2017, the Financial Times reported: Financial Times Mexico, the worlds biggest buyer of US corn, is considering offering duty-free access to Brazilian and Argentine maize as an alternative to American imports in a move that could have big consequences for US farmers worried about Donald Trumps trade and tax agenda. [...] "I am pretty optimistic about the possibility of having a deal with these countries soon," Juan Carlos Baker, Mexicos deputy economy minister, told the Financial Times in an interview. "Were pretty far advanced with Brazil...Argentina is a few steps behind," he said.... The following month, Baker told Reuters that a deal with Argentina could be finalized by the end of 2017: Reuters Mexico, seeking closer ties with the rest of Latin America, expects to finish negotiations on a trade deal with Argentina involving cars and agricultural products around the end of the year, Mexicos deputy minister for foreign trade said in an interview on Tuesday. [...] Under the deal, Argentina could gain part of the lucrative grains market in Mexico, Latin Americas No. 2 economy, Baker told Reuters. In 2015 Mexico imported $2.3 billion worth of U.S. corn and $1.4 billion of U.S. soy. But Baker said those numbers will likely decrease under a renegotiated North American Free Trade Agreement called for by Trump. "The potential is there," Baker said. "The Argentine exporters could find attractive conditions in Mexico." Mexico, in turn, could export cars to Argentina, he said. "We have a very strong manufacturing industry and Argentina is an important market for us," Baker said. A trade deal between Mexico and Argentina may be in the works, but it has not yet been announced as of 1 November 2017. However, assuming a deal goes ahead to shift Mexico's importation of certain products from the United States to Argentina, the numbers are significant but not as dramatic as they are in the meme. According to United States Grain Council statistics, the United States exported $2.5 billion worth of corn to Mexico in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the United States exported $2.9 billion worth of soy products to Mexico, according to the U.S. Soybean Export Council (page 19.) According to Global Agricultural Trade System statistics for 2016, exports of wheat and rice were worth $612 million and $274 million, respectively. Grain Council page 19 Global Agricultural Trade System This yields a total of $6.3 billion in U.S. exports to Mexico of corn, rice, wheat and soy the four products specified in the above meme. So even if Mexico did decide to stop importing all these products from the U.S., the likely annual financial cost to the American agriculture industry would be extremely significant, but still only around half the $13 billion claimed. It's not entirely clear where the figure of $13 billion came from, but it might have originated in an October 2017 letter sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and signed by dozens of food and agriculture companies and industry associations, warning Ross about the dangers, as they see them, of withdrawing from NAFTA. letter According to a study by ImpactECON, if Canada, Mexico, and the United States return to most favored nation (MFN) tariff rates upon any withdrawal from NAFTA, the negative impact on the United States will far outweigh any benefits from higher U.S. tariffs, including a net loss of 256,000 U.S. jobs, a net loss of at least 50,000 jobs in the U.S. food and agriculture industry, and a drop in GDP of $13 billion from the farm sector alone. The study mentioned here was an August 2017 working paper produced by the economic consulting firm ImpactECON. It did not actually mention any figure of $13 billion. Rather, it projected that over the course of two to three years after a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, real GDP in the United States would fall by as much as 0.09 percent. working paper Gross domestic product, or GDP, is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a particular geographic area (in this case, the United States.) It is a calculation commonly used to measure the total size of an economy. Real GDP is gross domestic product adjusted for inflation - meaning, roughly speaking, the size of the economy in relation to the cost of living. As of the third quarter of 2017 (when the ImpactECON report was published), the real GDP of the United States was $17.01 trillion, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A 0.09 percent decline in that would amount to a $15.3 billion loss not far off the $13 billion posited by the food and agriculture industry, in their letter. figures There are a couple of things to note here: firstly, the 0.09 percent decline estimated in the ImpactECON report relates to the entire U.S. economy, and not "the farm sector alone," as mentioned in the letter. In fact, the working paper projects a very small increase in production for the crops and forestry sector (0.04 percent, page 20), accompanied by a significant boost to production in the sugar sector (5.11 percent), but it also projects production declines of between one and two percent in the meat, food and livestock and fishing sectors. page 20 Secondly, this real GDP declined is projected to happen "in the next 2-3 years", so if the meme is using the letter to Wilbur Ross as the source of its $13 billion figure, it is misrepresenting the decline as happening "annually." projected Politico. "Full Transcript: First 2016 Presidential Debate." Politico. 27 September 2016. Webber, Jude. "Mexico Eyes Duty-Free Corn Deals to Counter Trump." Financial Times. 26 March 2017. Misculin, Nicolas. "Mexico, Looking South, Sees Trade Deal With Argentina Around Year's End." Reuters. 18 April 2017. U.S. Soybean Export Council. "2015 Annual Report." U.S. Soybean Export Council. 27 October 2015. NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. "Letter to Wilbur Ross." NAFTA Food and Ag Trade Working Group. 25 October 2017. Bureau of Economic Analysis. "Gross Domestic Product: Second Quarter 2017 (Advance Estimate.)" U.S. Department of Commerce. 28 July 2017. Walmsley, Terry; Minor, Peter. "Reversing NAFTA: A Supply Chain Perspective." ImpactECON. August 2017. Update [2 November 2017]: Added possible source of the $13 billion figure in the meme.

['economy']

NEI

Two of Donald Trump's most prominent 2016 campaign pledges were to build a border wall along the Mexican border (or rather, to reinforce and extend it; a wall already exists along hundreds of miles of the international border), and to renegotiate the North American Free Trade Agreement, a 1994 arrangement between the United States, Canada and Mexico which he called "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country."In October 2017, left-wing Facebook page "The Other 98%" posted a widely-shared meme which claimed that Mexico had in retaliation for Trump's border wall plans signed a major agricultural trade agreement with Argentina, which would have very harmful effects on American farmers:The source cited by "The Other 98%" is a September 2017 article by Daily Kos, which reported:It's not clear what the source of these claims is, but a similar meme appeared online earlier in 2017, which read:"Made in America Week" took place from 17-24 July 2017; we found no evidence of any deal between Mexico and Argentina being announced during that time period. However, talks have been ongoing between the two countries. In the spring of 2017, Mexico's Deputy Economy Minister Juan Carlos Baker made several comments in interviews about his country's negotiations with Argentina and Brazil. On 26 March 2017, the Financial Times reported:The following month, Baker told Reuters that a deal with Argentina could be finalized by the end of 2017:According to United States Grain Council statistics, the United States exported $2.5 billion worth of corn to Mexico in 2015 and 2016. In 2015, the United States exported $2.9 billion worth of soy products to Mexico, according to the U.S. Soybean Export Council (page 19.) According to Global Agricultural Trade System statistics for 2016, exports of wheat and rice were worth $612 million and $274 million, respectively. It's not entirely clear where the figure of $13 billion came from, but it might have originated in an October 2017 letter sent to Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, and signed by dozens of food and agriculture companies and industry associations, warning Ross about the dangers, as they see them, of withdrawing from NAFTA. The study mentioned here was an August 2017 working paper produced by the economic consulting firm ImpactECON. It did not actually mention any figure of $13 billion. Rather, it projected that over the course of two to three years after a U.S. withdrawal from NAFTA, real GDP in the United States would fall by as much as 0.09 percent.As of the third quarter of 2017 (when the ImpactECON report was published), the real GDP of the United States was $17.01 trillion, according to figures from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. A 0.09 percent decline in that would amount to a $15.3 billion loss not far off the $13 billion posited by the food and agriculture industry, in their letter. In fact, the working paper projects a very small increase in production for the crops and forestry sector (0.04 percent, page 20), accompanied by a significant boost to production in the sugar sector (5.11 percent), but it also projects production declines of between one and two percent in the meat, food and livestock and fishing sectors. Secondly, this real GDP declined is projected to happen "in the next 2-3 years", so if the meme is using the letter to Wilbur Ross as the source of its $13 billion figure, it is misrepresenting the decline as happening "annually."

Tabitha Adkins and Jesse Shedd

['Tabitha Adkins and Jesse Shedd are wanted by the police for beating an autistic woman named Ashley Hamilton?']

Claim: Jesse Shedd is wanted by the police for beating an autistic woman named Ashley Hamilton. Example: [Collected via Facebook, April 2013] WANTED BY THE LAW - TABITHA ADKINS AND JESSE SHEDD If you know the whereabouts of these criminals, please report this to your local police immediately, or post a comment on this blog or on Facebook. I see too many posts on Facebook about monsters who abuse and kill the innocent. We must not be silent. Silence implies consent. If you can stop a monster, you have to do your part—or you become an "accomplice after the fact" and share the guilt for the crime. We need everyone's help to find these two; their names are Tabitha Adkins and Jesse Shedd. They brutally beat this sweet little girl, Ashley, who is autistic, handicapped, and uses a wheelchair. Please, everyone, report this so they can be brought to justice. Origins: According to information posted on the Facebook site Justice for Ashley Hamilton, an autistic young woman by that name was "severely beaten by her caregivers" on April 3, 2013 (just three days before her 22nd birthday). Atlanta television station WIXI reported on the case, noting that: Justice for Ashley Hamilton. The Rabun County Sheriff's Office is investigating the possibility that a wheelchair-bound woman was assaulted. The victim, 21-year-old Ashley Hamilton, suffered extensive injuries to her head and face. Police found her at Raco's Sports Bar in Clayton on April 3. Rabun County Sheriff Frank Andrews said investigators think Hamilton was left in the care of family friends while her mother was out of town. The victim suffers from disabilities and must use a wheelchair. Andrews said Hamilton may have sustained her injuries on April 2. A home health professional said she told the victim's mother, Kelly Hamilton, to take the young woman to the hospital, but Ashley Hamilton did not receive medical attention until police and EMS found her at the sports bar. No arrests have been made, but Andrews said the sheriff's office has several persons of interest. They are trying to determine when and how Hamilton was injured. "We must be diligent in our efforts to find as much tangible evidence as possible since our victim is not in a position to tell us what happened to her," Andrews said in a statement. "It is in the interest of justice to see that no stone is left unturned." Atlanta television station WAGA has also reported that police were investigating the case: Authorities are investigating after a 22-year-old autistic woman was brutally attacked in Rabun County. Kelly Hamilton says she was out of town when she learned about injuries to her daughter Ashley's feet and face. "Her mouth was busted and her tooth was knocked out," Hamilton said. Family members say the autistic woman is developmentally on par with a 2-year-old child. They don't know who is responsible and say they remain stunned that anyone could or would harm the helpless woman. "The night I got home, there was no swelling or any bruising on her eye that had shown up. The doctors said that it would take 24 hours for bruising to develop," Kelly Hamilton said. After family members reported the attack, doctors treated Ashley Hamilton for those bruises. She spent a birthday in the hospital. Authorities are investigating the beating. Authorities say while Kelly Hamilton was out of town, Ashley stayed with family friends. Family members say they hope that the investigation leads to an arrest for an attack on a woman who can't fight back. "She's a beautiful little girl who can't defend herself, and she's brutally beaten up here, and I just want justice for her," said Kelly Hamilton. Rabun County authorities say that they are gathering details in the case. The Clayton Tribune posted on their Facebook page on April 5, 2013, that: Facebook page In regard to the widely circulated photo on our Facebook page and beyond of an alleged beaten girl, we confirmed [yesterday] with the Rabun County Sheriff's Department that there is an open investigation. There are currently no other official updates, but we will provide news updates as we have them. On April 17, 2013, WAGA reported that seven people, including Ashley's mother and Jesse Shedd, were facing charges in connection with the case: Jesse Shedd. Seven people are facing charges in connection to the alleged beating of an autistic woman. Now, the victim's mother and other family members responsible for her care have been arrested. Kelly Hamilton says the charges of disabled person abuse against her are unfounded. Hamilton says she was out of town when a family friend severely beat her 22-year-old daughter, Ashley. Authorities also charged Richard Foss, Hamilton's fiancé, with reckless conduct. "They're saying the reason for the charges is because we didn't immediately call the night we got home to see her in that condition, but that condition wasn't visible until the next day," said Hamilton. "They said 24 hours later the bruises would show after a beating to her head." "Besides the cut on her lip and a broken tooth, those were the only visible signs the night we arrived," Foss said. Authorities have also charged five other people in the case. Deputies say one family friend who cared for Ashley, 28-year-old Jesse Terrell Shedd, faces charges of battery and disabled person abuse for actually hitting the severely autistic woman. "During that two-hour timeframe, we don't know to what extent the abuse occurred, but the facts and circumstances led us to believe he did inflict substantial visible bodily injury on Ashley Hamilton," said Rabun County Sheriff's Office chief investigator Gerald Johnson. Last updated: April 17, 2013 Carver, Darryl. "Mom, Six Others Charged in Attack on Autistic Woman." WAGA-TV [Atlanta]. April 17, 2013. Sawicki, Beth. "Disabled Woman in Wheelchair Possibly Assaulted." WIXI-TV [Atlanta]. April 8, 2013.

['interest']

True

Origins: According to information posted on the Facebook site Justice for Ashley Hamilton, an autistic young woman by that name was "severely beaten by her caregivers" on 3 April 2013 (just three days before her 22nd birthday). Atlanta television station WIXI reported on the case, noting that:The Clayton Tribune posted on their Facebook page on 5 April 2013 that:On 17 April 2013, WAGA reported that seven people, including Ashley's mother and Jesse Shedd, were facing charges in connection with the case:

Does NASA Data Show That Global Warming Isn't Causing a Sea Level Rise?

['Dubious web sites generously provided the Internet with textbook examples of both cherry-picked data and the shameless conflation of weather with climate.']

On 26 July 2017, supplement and paranoia peddling website NaturalNews.com made a sweeping conclusion about climate change based on a portion of a single chart they found. The post, by Mike "Health Ranger" Adams, uses a time series of satellite sea level data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to argue that climate change is no big deal and that the mainstream media is ignoring data that proves him right: post NASAs own data reveal that world-wide ocean levels have been falling for nearly two years, dropping from a variation of roughly 87.5mm to below 85mm. These data, of course, clearly contradict the false narrative of rapid, never-ending rising ocean levels that flood continents and drown cities a key element of the climate change boogeyman fiction thats used to scare gullible youth into making Al Gore rich. To "prove" this, Adams points to NASAs satellite altimetry data used by scientists to precisely measure global average sea level change since 1993 which he says busts the whole global warming thing wide open, despite its fairly unambiguous long-term upward trend: The NASA chart allegedly showing that sea level is not rising. Credit: NASA. The region of the chart around the last two years of the record that allegedly proves global warming is a lie is highlighted above. It shows a period of generally flat sea level rise. Astute chart readers, however, may note that there have been a number of times throughout the record in which sea level rise has been flat, or even briefly reversed, before continuing the more dominant rising trend. According to University of New South Wales climatologist and sea level expert John Church, this is the reason the "media" is "silent" on the issue; in fact, it is in no way newsworthy: The short term fall over the last year or so reported on the Natural News website is nothing out of the ordinary and in fact the fall seems less than several previous examples of sea level fall, such as [the drop documented in 2010-2011]. It does not seem to be a particularly noteworthy event. To understand why the event is not noteworthy, one needs to understand both the short- and long-term drivers of sea level change. From a long-term global perspective, there are two primary drivers of sea level rise: the first is the balance between water trapped in ice and water contained within the ocean itself. Simply put, when ice that is trapped on land melts, it increases the volume of water in the ocean, causing sea level to rise. primary drivers The second major driver is known as thermal expansion when water gets warmer it expands, increasing its volume. Research suggests that these two contributors alone explain 75 percent of the observed sea level rise since 1971. suggests These larger trends, however, can be dampened (or enhanced) by shorter term weather patterns. The most important factors to consider on this time-scale are the El Nio-La Nia cycle (which affects both water temperature, as well as evaporation and precipitation of moisture) and the hydrological issues associated with where rainwater falls on land. The best illustration of these factors combining to alter the overall trend of sea level rise is the 2010-2011 drop in sea level mentioned above. factors In this instance, the confluence of La Nia and a number of other atmospheric circulation patterns forced an anomalously large amount of rain to fall over the uniquely bowl-shaped continent of Australia, as described by Scientific American: described In most cases, though, water that falls on land eventually drains into the ocean. Even if a whole lot of rain fell in South America's Amazon, for example, it could slow sea-level rise for only about a couple of months, as it slowly made its way to the sea. So in order to make sea levels fall, the water had to be stored in a place where it didn't reach the ocean for a long while. That place, it turns out, was Australia. [...] Lake Eyre is the lowest point in Australia. It's usually a dry, salty flat. But when it rains heavily, the basin fills, and the lake teems with new life, as long-dormant seeds spring to life and birds flock to the lake. From 2010 to 2011, enough rain fell on Australia to fill the lower part of the lake almost completely, and the upper portion at least 75 percent. Australia got about a foot of rain more than normal over that period, said [National Center for Atmospheric Research scientist John] Fasullo. The continent stored that excess water for long enough to change global sea levels. That the world's smallest continent can affect global sea levels this way is pretty extraordinary, said Fasullo. It's also rare. [...] In addition to La Nia, other climate variations also played a role. Together, they forced the extraordinary rainfall and water storage in the Australian continent. Eventually, of course, this water evaporates and returns to the ocean, where it joins the expanding and increasing global ocean reservoir. We spoke to Fasullo the lead author on the study that documented the cause of the 2010-2011 drop in sea level about this current hiatus, and he told us it in no way conflicts with our understanding of the connection between global warming and sea level rise: Of course, this leveling does not conflict with our understanding of sea level rise and its main drivers. It is well known for example that sea level falls (in an anomalous sense) at the end of an El Nio due to drought subsiding over many tropical land areas such as the Amazon (water moves from the ocean to land surface) and heat being released from the ocean (as the tropical upper Pacific Ocean releases heat to the atmosphere, causing contraction). [The] recent leveling of sea level rise comes on the heels of an unprecedented rate of rise during the four years that preceded it (2011-14). In addition to global warming, this rise was also strongly influenced by the El Nio-La Nia cycle and so it too should not be oversold. Ultimately, the story published by Adams attempts to disguise a weather as a climatological trend, University of California, Santa Cruz Climatologist Gary Griggs told us: One or two or three years of weather means very little in the long-term record of sea-level rise just as it would have very little meaning for global temperature records. Due to a variety of atmospheric circulation patterns and variations, temperatures vary from year to year as does rainfall, etc., the recent 4 year drought in the west is a good example. Using two years of data to make sweeping claims about trends in the global climate system, especially when such fluctuations are known and understood by science, is misleading and inaccurate, and as such we rank this claim as false. Adams, Mike. "NASA Confirms: Sea Levels Have Been Falling Across the Planet for Two Years Media Silent." Natural News. 26 July 2017. NASA. "Understanding Sea Level" Accessed 1 August 2017. IPCC. "Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri and L.A. Meyer (eds.)]" 2014 (Chapter 13). Boening, Carmen, et al. "The 2011 La Nia: So Strong, the Oceans Fell." Geophysical Research Letters. 4 October 2012. Ogburn, Stephanie Page. "A Scientist Explains the Mystery of Recent Sea-Level Drop." Scientific American. 20 August 2013.

['returns']

False

On 26 July 2017, supplement and paranoia peddling website NaturalNews.com made a sweeping conclusion about climate change based on a portion of a single chart they found. The post, by Mike "Health Ranger" Adams, uses a time series of satellite sea level data from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration to argue that climate change is no big deal and that the mainstream media is ignoring data that proves him right: The NASA chart allegedly showing that sea level is not rising. Credit: NASA.To understand why the event is not noteworthy, one needs to understand both the short- and long-term drivers of sea level change. From a long-term global perspective, there are two primary drivers of sea level rise: the first is the balance between water trapped in ice and water contained within the ocean itself. Simply put, when ice that is trapped on land melts, it increases the volume of water in the ocean, causing sea level to rise.The second major driver is known as thermal expansion when water gets warmer it expands, increasing its volume. Research suggests that these two contributors alone explain 75 percent of the observed sea level rise since 1971.These larger trends, however, can be dampened (or enhanced) by shorter term weather patterns. The most important factors to consider on this time-scale are the El Nio-La Nia cycle (which affects both water temperature, as well as evaporation and precipitation of moisture) and the hydrological issues associated with where rainwater falls on land. The best illustration of these factors combining to alter the overall trend of sea level rise is the 2010-2011 drop in sea level mentioned above.In this instance, the confluence of La Nia and a number of other atmospheric circulation patterns forced an anomalously large amount of rain to fall over the uniquely bowl-shaped continent of Australia, as described by Scientific American:

Cindy Williams Criticizes Military Pay Raises

['Rumor: Actress Cindy Williams wrote an op-ed critical of military pay raises.']

Claim: Actress Cindy Williams penned an editorial denouncing a proposed pay raise for the military. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2001] This is how we treat our public servants. One story among many! Salute to our Service Men & Women On 12 Jan, Ms Cindy Williams (from Laverne and Shirley TV show) wrote a piece for the Washington Times denouncing the pay raise(s) coming service members' way this year-citing that the stated 13% wage gap was bogus. A young airman from Hill AFB responds to her article below. He ought to get a bonus for this! Ms. Williams: I just had the pleasure of reading your column of 12 Jan 00, "Our GIs earn enough," and I am a bit confused. Frankly, I'm wondering where this vaunted overpayment is going, because as far as I can tell, it disappears every month between DFAS (The Defense Finance and Accounting Service) and my bank account. Checking my latest leave and earnings statement (LES), see that I make $1,117.80, before taxes. After taxes, I take home $ 874.20. When I run that through Windows' Calculator, I come up with an annual salary of $13,413.60 before taxes, and $10,490.40 after. I work in the Air Force Network Control Center (AFNCC), where I am part of the team responsible for the administration of a 25,000-host computer network. I am involved with infrastructure segments, specifically with Cisco Systems equipment. A quick check under jobs for Network Technicians in the Washington, D.C. area reveals a position in my career field, requiring three years experience with my job. Amazingly, this job does NOT pay $13,413.60 a year, nor does it pay less than this. No, this job is being offered at $70,000 to $80,000 per annum. I'm sure you can draw the obvious conclusions. Also, you tout increases to Basic Allowance for Housing and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (housing and food allowances, respectively) as being a further boon to an already overcompensated force. Again, I'm curious as to where this money has gone, as BAH and BAS were both slashed 15% in the Hill AFB area effective in January 00. Given the tenor of your column, I would assume that you have NEVER had the pleasure of serving your country in her armed forces. Before you take it upon yourself to once more castigate congressional and DOD leadership for attempting to get the families in the military's lowest pay brackets off AFDC, WIC, and food stamps, I suggest that you join a group of deploying soldiers headed for Saudi I leave the choice of service branch up to you. Whatever choice you make, though, opt for the SIX month rotation: it will guarantee you the longest possible time away from your family and friends, thus giving you full "deployment experience." As your group prepares to board the plane, make sure to note the spouses and children who are saying good-bye to their loved ones. Also take care to note that several families are still unsure of how they'll be able to make ends meet while the primary breadwinner is gone obviously they've been squandering the vast piles of cash the DOD has been giving them. Try to deploy over a major holiday; Christmas and Thanksgiving are perennial favorites. And when you're actually over there, sitting in a DFP (Defensive Fire Position, the modern-day foxhole), shivering against the cold desert night, and the flight sergeant tells you that there aren't enough people on shift to relieve you for chow, remember this: trade whatever MRE you manage to get for the tuna noodle casserole or cheese tortellini, and add Tabasco to everything. Talk to your loved ones as often as you are permitted; it won't nearly be long enough or often enough, but take what you can get and be thankful for it. You may have picked up on the fact that I disagree with most of the points you present in your op-ed piece. But, tomorrow from Sarajevo, I will defend to the death your right to say it. You see, I am an American fighting man, a guarantor of your First Amendment rights and every other right you cherish. On a daily basis, my brother and sister soldiers worldwide ensure that you and people like you can thumb your collective nose at us, all on a salary that is nothing short of pitiful and under conditions that would make most people cringe. We hemorrhage our best and brightest into the private sector because we can't offer the stability and pay of civilian companies. And you, Ms. Williams, have the gall to say that we make more than we deserve? Rubbish! A1C Michael BraggHill AFB AFNCC IF YOU AGREE, PLEASE PASS THIS ALONG TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE AND SHOW OUR SUPPORT OF THE AMERICAN FIGHTING MEN & WOMEN. THANK YOU. THIS LETTER SHOULD BE APPLAUDED BY ANYONE WHO'S EVER SERVED OR HAD A FAMILY MEMBER SERVE IN THE ARMED FORCES! THIS YOUNG MAN DESERVES A MEDAL !!! Variations: An August 2009 version changed the responding airman from one posted to Hill Air Force Base in Ogden, Utah, to one posted to Afghanistan, replying from Kabul. Origins: The editorial critical of military pay raises alluded to above and the irate response to it penned by an airman at Hill Air Force Base are genuine, but the author of the original editorial has been mistaken for her (more famous) namesake. Actress Cindy Williams, who starred in the hit 1973 film American Graffiti and portrayed sweet, lovable Shirley Feeney on the popular 1970s sitcom Laverne & Shirley hasn't been writing newspaper articles denouncing our "overpaid" servicemen. Back in January 2000,a different Cindy Williams, one who was then working as a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who had once served as assistant director for national security in the Congressional Cindy Williams Budget Office, contributed an op-ed piece to the Washington Post (not the WashingtonTimes) in which she criticized a proposed 25% pay increase for military personnel (on top of a 4.85% raise that had just been enacted). In her article, Ms. Williams maintained that claims that servicemen in the military suffered a 13 percent "pay gap" relative to the private sector were inaccurate, and that military personnel were already well paid compared to the average American. The full text of the editorial ("Our GIs Earn Enough") by the non-actress Cindy Williams can be found here. The response to that editorial which is reproduced in the example block above was indeed drafted by the airman named, although it was not itself published in Washington Post. here The misidentification of the original article's author has caused considerable grief for Cindy Williams the actress: "I've done everything to try to squelch it, but nothing seems to work," says Miss Williams of "Laverne and Shirley" fame. "I have people writing and calling me, even my friends, asking: 'Are you against a pay raise for the military?' And I reply, 'You know me, I'd fight [in the military] if I could, because I am such a patriot.'" Ironically enough, much of the angry correspondence (even "hate mail") the actress has received has come from the military ranks. "It's been really worrisome," says the actress. "It's terrible to malign people like that. I don't know where to go to say I didn't do this." Versions of this article circulated since 2009 have stated that Cindy Williams (the one who actually did write the editorial) is the Obama administration'sAssistant Director for National Security in the Congressional Budget Office. This is not correct Ms. Williams held that position from 1994 to 1997, during the Clinton administration. Last updated: 8 October 2015 Williams, Cindy. "Our GIs Earn Enough." The Washington Post. 12 January 2000 (p. A19).

['taxes']

False

Actress Cindy Williams, who starred in the hit 1973 film American Graffiti and portrayed sweet, lovable Shirley Feeney on the popular 1970s sitcom Laverne & Shirley hasn't been writing newspaper articles denouncing our "overpaid" servicemen. Back in January 2000,a different Cindy Williams, one who was then working as a senior research fellow at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and who had once served as assistant director for national security in the Congressional The full text of the editorial ("Our GIs Earn Enough") by the non-actress Cindy Williams can be found here. The response to that editorial which is reproduced in the example block above was indeed drafted by the airman named, although it was not itself published in Washington Post.

Did a Police Drug Raid Unexpectedly Find a Bitcoin Farm Instead?

['This rumor took us to the town of Santiponce, Spain, which is near Seville.']

On Feb. 1, 2022, a Reddit user posted a video in the r/Unexpected subreddit titled: "Police were looking for drugs." The video purportedly showed Spanish police busting down a door and expecting to find marijuana or other drugs, but instead uncovering a Bitcoin mining farm for cryptocurrency. Reddit posted a video r/Unexpected video cryptocurrency We found that the clip was originally posted by the National Police YouTube channel on Jan. 28. It was recorded in Santiponce, Spain, which is near Seville. It's unclear on exactly what date the bust took place: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5ET6kbChkA On the official website for the Spanish police, a news release also from Jan. 28 provided in-depth details on the Bitcoin mining farm bust: news release Police investigations began on a possible indoor marijuana plantation that could be located in some stables located in Santiponce. After carrying out the first inquiries, the agents realized that the existing indications did not correspond to the cultivation of marijuana, but rather that these facilities could be hosting a cryptocurrency farm of which there are hardly any records in Spain. With this information, the stables were entered and searched, where the agents discovered modern facilities for mining cryptocurrencies. In other words, it's true that the police originally thought the buildings might house a marijuana operation. However, according to the release, before the door was busted down, police had made inquiries and expected that they would find not marijuana or drugs, but rather a Bitcoin or other cryptocurrency mining farm. Inside the building. (Courtesy: National Police/YouTube) Research from NotebookCheck.net documented what was found in the raid and said that the electricity used by the Bitcoin mining farm was done in an illegal manner: NotebookCheck.net Over 21 Bitcoin mining ASICs were recovered from the location and what looks like five EVGA GeForce RTX 3080 graphics cards. The equipment, worth over 50,000, generated about 3,500 in revenue per month. The Bitcoin mine in question was relatively new, so it is unlikely that its owners came close to breaking even on their investment. Police are yet to identify who owns the farm in question and are investigating the matter. Like many other countries in the world, Spain does not have any laws against mining cryptocurrency, and mining is (somewhat) legal in the country. However, the electric connection for the Bitcoin mining farm was illegal and reportedly cost the state 2,000 per month. Regarding the illegal use of the electricity, the news release from police said: "Outside the premises, an illegal connection to the electrical network was located to power the equipment, observing a very high consumption of amps, which, according to technicians from the electrical company, could generate a monthly electricity fraud of 2,000 euros." An alternate view inside the building. (Courtesy: National Police/YouTube) In sum, the police seen in the video received information just prior to the bust that led them to expect that it was not marijuana or drugs that they would find, but rather the Bitcoin cryptocurrency mining farm that they eventually uncovered. Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing. help explain let us know

['investment']

False

On Feb. 1, 2022, a Reddit user posted a video in the r/Unexpected subreddit titled: "Police were looking for drugs." The video purportedly showed Spanish police busting down a door and expecting to find marijuana or other drugs, but instead uncovering a Bitcoin mining farm for cryptocurrency.On the official website for the Spanish police, a news release also from Jan. 28 provided in-depth details on the Bitcoin mining farm bust: Inside the building. (Courtesy: National Police/YouTube)Research from NotebookCheck.net documented what was found in the raid and said that the electricity used by the Bitcoin mining farm was done in an illegal manner: An alternate view inside the building. (Courtesy: National Police/YouTube)Curious about how Snopes' writers verify information and craft their stories for public consumption? We've collected some posts that help explain how we do what we do. Happy reading and let us know what else you might be interested in knowing.

Did President Trump Strong Arm Qatar Into Bailing Out Jared Kushner?

["The president's son-in-law reportedly owes a $1 billion-plus mortgage on a building he purchased on Fifth Avenue in 2007."]

In October 2018, social media users shared a meme posted by the liberal Facebook page Occupy Democrats reporting a series of events involving Gulf states were the result of President Donald Trump and his son-in-law and adviser Jared Kushner "using American foreign policy to enrich themselves": Although the sequence of events referenced in the meme is described accurately according to reputable news reports, the motives, connections, and causality the meme ascribes to those events have not been proved. It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018: reported Kushner Companies co-owns 666 Fifth Avenue with another developer, Vornado Realty. In 2007, at Jared Kushners urging, the company paid $1.8 billion for the building -- at the time, the highest price ever paid for a New York office tower. The property occupies a prime spot between Fifty-second and Fifty-third streets, but it was built in 1957 and needed extensive upgrades. It still has many vacancies, and the $1.2 billion mortgage, which reportedly has ballooned to almost $1.5 billion, is due in February, 2019. Right now, it is not entirely clear whether Kushner Companies is in a position to repay or refinance the loan. The company hoped to knock the building down and put up another, twice as tall and far more luxurious, in its place, Bloomberg reported. It sought funds from investors in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, China, South Korea, Israel and France. No investors were announced for the plan, described by many as prohibitively expensive. That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar: reported The 30-minute meeting, according to two sources in the financial industry who asked not to be named because of the sensitivity of the potential transaction, included aides to both parties, and was held at a suite at the St. Regis Hotel in New York. A follow-up meeting was held the next day in a glass-walled conference room at the Kushner property itself, though Al Emadi did not attend the second gathering in person. The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff. Middle Eastern diplomatic row subsequently undermined In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: commenced tweeted During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar - look! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017 June 6, 2017 In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties: reported Charles Kushner, head of the Kushner Companies, is in advanced talks with Brookfield Asset Management over a partnership to take control of the 41-story aluminum-clad tower in Midtown Manhattan, 666 Fifth Avenue, according to two real estate executives who have been briefed on the pending deal but were not authorized to discuss it. Brookfield is a publicly traded company, and its real estate arm, Brookfield Property Partners, is partly owned by the Qatari government, through the Qatar Investment Authority. And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar. telling It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi. scrutiny Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered. ambushed Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned." calls told Cassidy, John. "Jared Kushners Conflicts of Interest Reach a Crisis Point." The New Yorker. 2 March 2018. Swisher, Clayton and Ryan Grim. "Jared Kushner's Real Estate Firm Sought Money Directly from Qatar Government Weeks Before Blockade." The Intercept. 2 March 2018. Bagli, Charles V. and Jesse Drucker. "Kushners Near Deal with Qatar-Linked Company for Troubled Tower." The New York Times. 17 May 2018. Kirkpatrick, David D. and Carlotta Gall. "Audio Offers Gruesome Details of Jamal Khashoggi Killing, Turkish Official Says." The New York Times. 17 October 2018.

['loan']

NEI

It is true that Jared Kushner, who is married to President Trump's eldest daughter Ivanka, was in need of over a billion dollars to cover the mortgage on 666 Fifth Avenue, a 41-story Manhattan building he purchased for $1.8 billion in 2007, as the New Yorker reported on 2 March 2018:That same day, The Intercept reported that in April 2017, Kushner's father Charles, who runs the family's real estate firm Kushner Companies, had made a direct appeal for financing to Qatari Finance Minister Ali Sharif Al Emadi, which was followed shortly afterwards by the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar:The failure to broker the deal would be followed only a month later by a Middle Eastern diplomatic row in which Jared Kushner provided critical support to Qatars neighbors. Led by Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, a group of Middle Eastern countries, with Kushners backing, led a diplomatic assault that culminated in a blockade of Qatar. Kushner, according to reports at the time, subsequently undermined efforts by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson to bring an end to the standoff.In May 2017, Qatar's Gulf neighbors commenced a blockade of that country, and within days President Trump tweeted his support of the blockage despite the fact that Qatar is home to Al Udeid Air Base, a key U.S. military installation: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017In May 2018, the New York Times reported that the Kushner family was close to reaching a bailout deal for 666 Fifth Avenue with a company possessing Qatari government ties:And, the Trump administration around that time reversed course with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo telling the Saudis in April 2018 that it was time to end the blockade against Qatar.It's likely the meme gained momentum on social media in October 2018 due to scrutiny over Kushner and Trump's relationship with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman in light of the gruesome murder of Jamal Kashoggi. Kashoggi, a Saudi national and columnist for the Washington Post, went missing on 2 October 2018 after entering the Saudi consulate in Istanbul seeking documents he needed to get married. According to reports citing Turkish government and U.S. intelligence sources, the Virginia resident never left the consulate, where he was ambushed by Saudi agents, tortured and murdered, and his body dismembered.Trump has resisted calls by U.S. lawmakers to impose sanctions on Saudi Arabia in retaliation for the journalist's apparent death, comparing global condemnation of the Gulf kingdom to accusations of sexual misconduct leveled against U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh. Trump told the Associated Press: "Here we go again with, you know, you're guilty until proven innocent. I don't like that. We just went through that with Justice Kavanaugh and he was innocent all the way as far as I'm concerned."

California Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom was for (high-speed rail), before hes against it, and then hes for it again.

[]

High-speed rail has wedged itself into the 2018 campaign for California governor, splitting the current top two Democrats in the race. Former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosarecently claimed Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsomthe frontrunner in the racehas essentially flip-flopped in his support for the states controversial and costly rail project. Heres what Villaraigosa told theSacramento Beeon Sept. 20, 2017: Newsom was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. He added that Newsom was revising his positions when the winds blow in his direction. Given the key decisions Californias next governor will need to make on high-speed rail, we wanted to know whether Newsom has really shifted this much in his support for the massive project. We hopped aboard for a fact-check. Background on the bullet train In 2008, California voters approved a nearly $10 billion bond to jump-start the development of a high-speed rail network. Plans called for trains to zip across the state at 200 miles per hour, initially connecting San Francisco to Los Angeles and eventually extending the system to Sacramento and San Diego. Cost estimates for the project, however, have see-sawed from an initial $33 billion to $98 billion to $64 billion. The project has also fallen far behind schedule with construction limited to a small segment in the Central Valley. We asked Villaraigosas campaign for evidence of Newsoms shifting positions. As examples of his initial support, it pointed to news articles showing Newsom backing the 2008 bond measure. The campaign then cited a2014 radio interviewthat it says proves Newsom opposed the project. Finally, it cited articles from October 2016 in which the lieutenant governor again pledged his support. We absolutely need this, Newsom said of high-speed rail in a2007Mercury-Newsarticle. In February 2014, however, Newsom was asked by conservative radio host Ben Shapiro:Are you pro or against the train, especially now that the California public, which approved the train in the first place, has reneged and no longer likes the train? Newsom responded:I think Im where the public was and is. Apoll in September 2013found 52 percent of Californians wanted the rail project stopped and 51 percent felt it was a waste of money. Newsom went on to tell Shapiro:We dont have the federal dollars we were hoping for ... the private sector hasnt stepped up. Shapiro then asked:If you had your druthers, Gavin, would you kill the thing? Newsom responded:I would take the dollars and redirect it to other, more pressing infrastructure needs. I am not the only Democrat that feels this way. I gotta tell you, I am one of the few that just said it publicly. Most are now saying it privately. This exchange gave many the impression Newsom had backed away from the project. Newsom did not clarify in the interview what kind of funds should be redirected. In October 2016, Newsom told the Sacramento Press Club that he would 100 percent seek a solid funding source for the train project if he's elected governor in 2018. TheAssociated Presstook that to mean he again supported the project. AMarch 2017 pollfound Californians remain divided over high-speed rail, with 48 percent favoring the project and 46 percent opposed. The survey added that 66 percent say they would favor high-speed rail if it cost less than the current estimate of $64 billion over the next 20 years. In this Feb. 26, 2016, file photo, the supports for a 1,600-foot-viaduct to carry high-speed rail trains across the Fresno River are seen under construction near Madera, Calif. (AP Photo/Rich Pedroncelli, File) Newsoms response Dan Newman, Newsoms campaign spokesman, described Villaraigosas claim about shifting positions this way: The statement is extremely misleading at best, he said in an email. Villaraigosa is simply trying to score political points with a disingenuous cheap shot, by blithely ignoring the fact that the project being discussed today is significantly different than what voters supported in 2008. The spokesman said Newsom has never opposed high-speed rail. Instead, Newsom publicly scrutinized the projects business plan when cost estimates ballooned to nearly $100 billion and questioned Gov. Jerry Browns plans to use cap and trade funds for it, the spokesman said. Scrutinizing the business plan is very different from opposing (high-speed rail), Newman added. He said Newsoms comment in the 2014 radio interview about redirecting money away from the project was referring to redirecting cap and trade money away from it, not the state bond money passed by voters. He said a statement from Newsoms office in March 2014 clarifies Newsoms consistent support even as he questioned the projects finances: The lieutenant governor has long supported high speed rail and still does, but this project in its current form gives him pause, Newsoms spokeswoman Andrea Koskey, told Buzzfeed News for anarticleon March 27, 2014. He added that Newsoms statements of support in more recent years are also consistent with previous comments. Experts we spoke with were split on the claim. Sacramento State Political Science ProfessorWesley Husseysaid Villaraigosas claim about Newsom vacillating on the project isnt right. I don't think it's a fair assessment, the professor said in an email.Newsom came out several years ago with serious doubts about the high speed rail, but I don't think he's ever said definitely he would stop the program if he became governor. Maybe he fluctuates from lukewarm to a soft no, but that's not the same as consistently changing his opinion. Key to our assessment, however, was the 2014 radio interview and Newsoms own admission that he agreed with the growing public sentiment that opposed the train at that time. We spoke with one more expert. Lou Thompson is chairman of theCalifornia High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, an independent oversight group that issues reports to the Legislature on the project. He declined to comment about whether he believed Newsom had definitely switched his stance on high speed rail. Thompson said, however, that redirecting cap and trade money away from the project in 2014, as Newsom suggested doing, would have made the projects future a lot more difficult. Asked whether such a move would have effectively killed the project, Thompson said: I dont know what other source of money they would have found. He described cap and trade money as the key revenue source for the project both then and now, given the restrictions on other sources, including the bond funds. Our rating Villaraigosa claimed Newsom has essentially flip-flopped in his support for Californias high-speed rail, saying he was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again. Villaraigosas campaign cited articles showing Newsom strongly backed the project a decade ago. It also pointed to aradio interview in 2014in which Newsom admitted that he shared the publics growing opposition to high-speed rail. He also suggested redirecting funds away from the project, a move that the head of the projects oversight panel said would have made building high-speed rail a lot more difficult. A spokesman for Newsoms campaign defended the candidates stance, saying Newsom has scrutinized project costs as they have soared beyond initial estimates. He said, however, that Newsom has never turned his back on high-speed rail. We found Villaraigosa pointed to key evidence, particularly the 2014 radio interview, that shows Newsoms stance had shifted, at least for that moment in time. In fairness to Newsom, hes consistently expressed concern that the project no longer represents what voters supported in 2008 and that his main worry was its cost. Villaraigosas statement could have used this additional information. We rate his 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.

['Infrastructure', 'State Budget', "The 2018 California Governor's Race", 'Transportation', 'California']

True

Former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosarecently claimed Lt. Gov.Gavin Newsomthe frontrunner in the racehas essentially flip-flopped in his support for the states controversial and costly rail project.Heres what Villaraigosa told theSacramento Beeon Sept. 20, 2017: Newsom was for it, before hes against it, and then hes for it again.As examples of his initial support, it pointed to news articles showing Newsom backing the 2008 bond measure. The campaign then cited a2014 radio interviewthat it says proves Newsom opposed the project. Finally, it cited articles from October 2016 in which the lieutenant governor again pledged his support.We absolutely need this, Newsom said of high-speed rail in a2007Mercury-Newsarticle.Apoll in September 2013found 52 percent of Californians wanted the rail project stopped and 51 percent felt it was a waste of money.In October 2016, Newsom told the Sacramento Press Club that he would 100 percent seek a solid funding source for the train project if he's elected governor in 2018. TheAssociated Presstook that to mean he again supported the project.AMarch 2017 pollfound Californians remain divided over high-speed rail, with 48 percent favoring the project and 46 percent opposed. The survey added that 66 percent say they would favor high-speed rail if it cost less than the current estimate of $64 billion over the next 20 years.The lieutenant governor has long supported high speed rail and still does, but this project in its current form gives him pause, Newsoms spokeswoman Andrea Koskey, told Buzzfeed News for anarticleon March 27, 2014.Sacramento State Political Science ProfessorWesley Husseysaid Villaraigosas claim about Newsom vacillating on the project isnt right.Lou Thompson is chairman of theCalifornia High-Speed Rail Peer Review Group, an independent oversight group that issues reports to the Legislature on the project.Villaraigosas campaign cited articles showing Newsom strongly backed the project a decade ago. It also pointed to aradio interview in 2014in which Newsom admitted that he shared the publics growing opposition to high-speed rail. He also suggested redirecting funds away from the project, a move that the head of the projects oversight panel said would have made building high-speed rail a lot more difficult.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Did Channing Tatum and Jenna Dewan Break Up?

['The celebrity couple announced they had "lovingly chosen to separate" in April 2018.']

In April 2018, actor Channing Tatum and his wife, actor and dancer Jenna Dewan Tatum, announced plans to separate after nine years of marriage. In an era of celebrity hoaxes, the news was met with skepticism by some of our readers. On April 3, the pair published a joint statement on their respective Instagram accounts confirming their impending separation: "Hey world! So... We have something we would like to share. First off, it feels odd that we have to share this kind of thing with everyone, but it's a consequence of the lives we've chosen to lead, which we also happen to be deeply grateful for. We're living in an incredible moment in time, but it's also a time where truth can easily get distorted into 'alternative facts' ;) So we want to share the truth so you know that if you didn't read it here, then it's most certainly fiction. We have lovingly chosen to separate as a couple. We fell deeply in love so many years ago and have had a magical journey together. Absolutely nothing has changed about how much we love one another, but love is a beautiful adventure that is taking us on different paths for now. There are no secrets nor salacious events at the root of our decision—just two best friends realizing it's time to take some space and help each other live the most joyous, fulfilled lives possible. We are still a family and will always be loving, dedicated parents to Everly. We won't be commenting beyond this, and we thank you all in advance for respecting our family's privacy. Sending lots of love to everyone, Chan & Jenna." The couple, who starred together in the 2006 movie Step Up, were married in 2009. They have one daughter, Everly, who was born in 2013.

['share']

True

In an era of celebrity hoaxes, the news was greeted with skepticism by some of our readers. It's true. On 3 April, the pair published a joint statement on their respective Instagram accounts that confirmed their impending separation:The couple, who starred together in the 2006 movie Step Up, were married in 2009. They have one daughter, Everly, who was born in 2013.

Was a Chinese Company Set to Buy General Electric in 2021?

['A Facebook meme shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 asked American readers, "Are you concerned yet?"']

In late 2020 and early 2021, multiple Snopes readers asked us to examine the accuracy of a viral Facebook meme that claimed a Chinese company was set to purchase General Electric for a sum of $5.4 billion. The post, published by Hal Downing on Dec. 23, 2020, read: read General Electric is being sold to a Chinese company for 5.4 billion dollars. Americans are you concerned yet??? The warning "Americans, are you concerned yet?" appears to be a reference to the imminent inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden in January 2021, and a slew of baseless conspiracy theories that allege sinister connections between Biden and China. conspiracy theories Several other Facebook posts by Downing demonstrate a belief that: "Democrats are owned by China"; that Biden's elevation to office will represent a moment of calamity for the United States; and that Democrats committed treason by "colluding" with China by deploying millions of fraudulent, Chinese-made ballots in order to secure Biden's victory. owned calamity colluding In reality, we found no record of any announcement, or reliable news report, of a deal to sell General Electric (GE) to any Chinese company in 2021. Rather, the figure of "5.4 billion dollars" refers to the sale of GE's appliances division to the China-based company Haier. That sale was announced in January 2016 and completed in the summer of 2016 before that year's U.S. presidential election took place, and long before Biden had even announced his intention to run for president four years later. announced completed That sequence of events fatally undermines the broader suggestion that Biden's presidency will "open the floodgates" for aggressive Chinese involvement in the American economy, as part of an underlying, sinister relationship between Biden and the Communist Chinese regime. Furthermore, the Chinese company in question bought one of GE's divisions, not the entire entity an additional, highly significant inaccuracy in the widely shared meme.

['economy']

False

In late 2020 and early 2021, multiple Snopes readers asked us to examine the accuracy of a viral Facebook meme that claimed a Chinese company was set to purchase General Electric for a sum of $5.4 billion. The post, published by Hal Downing on Dec. 23, 2020, read:The warning "Americans, are you concerned yet?" appears to be a reference to the imminent inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden in January 2021, and a slew of baseless conspiracy theories that allege sinister connections between Biden and China.Several other Facebook posts by Downing demonstrate a belief that: "Democrats are owned by China"; that Biden's elevation to office will represent a moment of calamity for the United States; and that Democrats committed treason by "colluding" with China by deploying millions of fraudulent, Chinese-made ballots in order to secure Biden's victory.That sale was announced in January 2016 and completed in the summer of 2016 before that year's U.S. presidential election took place, and long before Biden had even announced his intention to run for president four years later.