Datasets:

kkawamu1

/

fmd_train_val

like 0

FMD_train_1624

Clinton Disarmed Soldiers on Military Bases?

09/19/2013

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

False

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

FMD_train_421

European Union Gag Order On Revealing Muslim Terrorists' Religion

11/18/2016

In November 2016, rumors began to swirl that the European Union had ordered the media not to report when terrorism suspects were Muslim, presumably because of pressure from Islamic groups. The stories were mostly fueled like the headlines such as the one reproduced above, which appears to have been taken from an 18 November 2016 post by the Gatestone Institute: post The institute is headed up by John R. Bolton, a Fox News contributor and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is reportedly under consideration by President-elect Donald Trump as his secretary of state. reportedly The headline, in turn, was similar to one published by the conservative Daily Mail in Britain on 5 October 2016: the conservative Daily Mail The allegation is taken from a report published a day earlier by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which was commissioned by the Council of Europe to monitor human rights abuses. However, Bolton's group failed to note that the council is a separate organization from the European Union, and it issued a recommendation, not a mandate. earlier ECRI Both the Mail and the institute portray the report as pinning the blame on the media for an increase in hate crimes and hate speech across the United Kingdom between 2009 and 2016. As the latter group puts it: The ECRI report establishes a direct causal link between some tough headlines in British tabloids and the security of the Muslims in the UK. In other words, the British press is allegedly inciting readers to commit "Islamophobic" acts against Muslims. Criticism of the report centered around this passage: ECRI regrets that a way has not been found to establish an independent press regulator and that, as a result, certain tabloids continue to publish offensive material, as indicated above. ECRI urges the media to take stock of the importance of responsible reporting, not only to avoid perpetuating prejudice and biased information, but also to avoid harm to targeted persons or vulnerable groups. ECRI considers that, in light of the fact that Muslims are increasingly under the spotlight as a result of recent ISIS-related terrorist acts around the world, fuelling prejudice against Muslims shows a reckless disregard, not only for the dignity of the great majority of Muslims in the United Kingdom, but also for their safety. In this context, it draws attention to a recent study by Teesside University suggesting that where the media stress the Muslim background of perpetrators of terrorist acts, and devote significant coverage to it, the violent backlash against Muslims is likely to be greater than in cases where the perpetrators motivation is downplayed or rejected in favour of alternative explanations. The Teesside study, which covered the period between March 2014 and February 2015, found that instances of anti-Muslim violence in Europe and Australia increased in the seven-day period immediately after terror attacks, compared to the seven days before. However, that report also stated that there were fewer Islamophobic incidents in Australia following the attack on a Sydney shopping mall in December 2014, pointing out that the reporting focused on the attacker's history of mental instability and not his religion. study, attack While the ECRI did call for an "independent press regulator," it also stated that it did not want government officials "encroaching on [media outlets'] editorial independence the need to ensure that reporting does not contribute to creating an atmosphere of hostility and rejection towards various minority ethnic groups." It also said that media practices in the UK had already been criticized in the Leveson Inquiry, a government probe that took place after revelations that News International (owned by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch) engaged in phone-hacking and other dubious practices. Inquiry, From the ECRI report: The Leveson Report, published in November 2012, pointed out that certain parts of the press ride roughshod over others, both individuals and the public at large, without any justifiable public interest, and that a significant number of news stories fail to meet standards of integrity and propriety and reflect a culture of recklessness in prioritising sensational stories, almost irrespective of the harm these may cause and the rights of those who would be affected. It also noted a significant and reckless disregard for accuracy. The report stated that the Press Complaints Commission was not independent and had failed its purpose, and recommended replacing it with a new, independent, self-regulatory body established by statute, with the dual roles of promoting high standards of journalism and protecting the rights of individuals, and with a range of sanctions available to it. Bolton's organization also failed to note that the ECRI's report contained 23 recommendations for the U.K. government, covering not only how to deal with Islamophobia, but ways to integrate refugees arriving to England and Northern Ireland, as well as Romani groups. recommendations Mamou, Yves. "Council of Europe Recommends British Press NOT Report when Terrorists are Muslims." Gatestone Institute. 18 November 2016. Conway, Madeline. "Bolton calls regime change the 'only long-term solution' in Iran." Politico. 17 November 2016. Dathan, Matt. "European human rights chiefs order the British press NOT to reveal when terrorists are Muslims in crackdown on freedom of speech." The Daily Mail. 5 October 2016. European Commission against Racism and Intolerance. "ECRI Report on the United Kingdom (Fifth Monitoring Cycle)." Coe.int. 4 October 2016. Teesside University. "New report reveals a rise in anti-Muslim hostility in Britain following acts of terrorism around the world." www.tees.ac.uk. 18 June 2015.

False

The stories were mostly fueled like the headlines such as the one reproduced above, which appears to have been taken from an 18 November 2016 post by the Gatestone Institute:The institute is headed up by John R. Bolton, a Fox News contributor and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations who is reportedly under consideration by President-elect Donald Trump as his secretary of state.The headline, in turn, was similar to one published by the conservative Daily Mail in Britain on 5 October 2016:The allegation is taken from a report published a day earlier by the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (ECRI), which was commissioned by the Council of Europe to monitor human rights abuses. However, Bolton's group failed to note that the council is a separate organization from the European Union, and it issued a recommendation, not a mandate.The Teesside study, which covered the period between March 2014 and February 2015, found that instances of anti-Muslim violence in Europe and Australia increased in the seven-day period immediately after terror attacks, compared to the seven days before. However, that report also stated that there were fewer Islamophobic incidents in Australia following the attack on a Sydney shopping mall in December 2014, pointing out that the reporting focused on the attacker's history of mental instability and not his religion.While the ECRI did call for an "independent press regulator," it also stated that it did not want government officials "encroaching on [media outlets'] editorial independence the need to ensure that reporting does not contribute to creating an atmosphere of hostility and rejection towards various minority ethnic groups." It also said that media practices in the UK had already been criticized in the Leveson Inquiry, a government probe that took place after revelations that News International (owned by Fox News CEO Rupert Murdoch) engaged in phone-hacking and other dubious practices.Bolton's organization also failed to note that the ECRI's report contained 23 recommendations for the U.K. government, covering not only how to deal with Islamophobia, but ways to integrate refugees arriving to England and Northern Ireland, as well as Romani groups.

FMD_train_1077

Government Cheddar

11/11/2015

Claim: President Obama has issued an executive order granting a $2,350 tax rebate to every American who filed a tax return for 2014. Example: Some women at work were discussing the following: Apparently, they saw on Facebook that, as an executive order by President Obama, the government is giving everyone who filed 2014 taxes a $2,350 rebate/refund to be mailed out this month (November 12, 2015). I have looked everywhere (on the Internet) that I can think of. The only place I can find it is on a site called "United Media Publishing." Also, the only reference to this that I can find on Facebook sends a person to this same article from United Media Publishing. Is this true? Origins: On 14 August 2015, the website United Media Publishing (UMP) issued an article titled "Obama Orders 2350 Dollar Tax Rebate In November," which reported that the Obama administration has directed IRS director John Koskinen to have the agency prepare for one of the largest cash refund/rebate handouts in the history of the organization. The President has authorized, by way of an executive order, that a $2,350 tax rebate be issued to every American who filed a tax return in the 2014 fiscal year, irrespective of whether they paid tax or not. Update: A representative for the IRS confirms that the first tax rebate checks will go into the mail on November 12th. While United Media Publishing's initial claim didn't attract much attention on social media, the highlighted portion in the above-reproduced excerpt breathed new life into the hoax in early November 2015. Unfortunately for readers (hopeful that an unexpected $2,350 windfall was headed their way at Christmastime), United Media Publishing is nothing more than a fake news site, one that doesn't feature a disclaimer notice identifying its content as fake news. Prior fabrications spread by UMP included a Charles Manson death hoax and a story about thousands of Christian couples filing for divorce in protest of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage. Last updated: 11 November 2015 Originally published: 11 November 2015

NEI

Unfortunately for readers (hopeful that anunexpected $2,350 windfall was headed their way atChristmastime),United Media Publishing is nothing more than a fake news site, one that doesn't feature a disclaimer notice identifying its content as fake news. Prior fabricationsspread by UMP included aCharles Mansondeath hoax and a story aboutthousands of Christian couples filing for divorceinprotest of the Supreme Court's ruling on gay marriage.

FMD_train_23

Did Biden Once Tell Racially Mixed Crowd That Republicans Will 'Put Y'All Back in Chains'?

02/12/2024

In the early months of 2024, as U.S. President Joe Biden ramped up his campaign for reelection in November, a controversial, years-old quote attributed to him was resurrected on social media. Biden, whose public verbal blunders are so legendary he has described himself as a "gaffe machine," allegedly told a racially mixed audience at a Danville, Virginia, campaign rally in 2012 that the Republican Party was going to "put y'all back in chains." gaffe machine That notorious statement, which surfaced in late April and early May 2019 (shortly after Biden announced his 2020 candidacy), was cited anew on platforms from X to TikTok as an instance of his "playing the race card" to disparage Republicans: X TikTok (@PatriotsStevie / X) Although it's unclear, based on contemporaneous press coverage of the event, whether the audience was most accurately described as "predominantly" or "largely" Black (more about which later), Biden did in fact utter the words attributed to him at an Aug. 14, 2012, rally attended by a racially mixed crowd that included hundreds of Black attendees. The following report is from the New York Times blog "The Caucus," posted the same day as the event: The Caucus Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. created a stir at a campaign speech in Virginia when he told the crowd that Mitt Romney's policies would enable the banking and financial sectors to "put you all back in chains." The remark came roughly two-thirds of the way through Mr. Biden's 30-minute speech, which was delivered to a crowd that included many African-Americans at the Institute for Advanced Learning and Research in Danville, Va. "Romney wants to let the he said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks once again write their own rules, unchain Wall Street," Mr. Biden said. "They're going to put you all back in chains." The moment was captured for posterity in a C-SPAN video. C-SPAN video We would probably not be talking about this today had Biden's remark not been widely interpreted as a direct reference to slavery. As such, it drew instant condemnation, beginning with the Romney campaign, which released a statement saying: "After weeks of slanderous and baseless accusations leveled against Governor Romney, the Obama campaign has reached a new low. The comments made by the vice president of the United States are not acceptable in our political discourse and demonstrate yet again that the Obama campaign will say and do anything to win this election." Romney himself echoed that statement in a speech he gave later the same day in which he held President Barack Obama responsible. "His campaign and his surrogates have made wild and reckless accusations that disgrace the office of the Presidency," Romney said at a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio. "Another outrageous charge came a few hours ago in Virginia. And the White House sinks a little bit lower." Though he didn't specifically mention race, Romney accused Obama of pursuing a strategy of divisiveness: "Over the last four years, this President has pushed Republicans and Democrats as far apart as they can go. And now he and his allies are pushing us all even further apart by dividing us into groups. He demonizes some. He panders to others. His campaign strategy is to smash America apart and then cobble together 51 percent of the pieces." Media pundits and campaign surrogates were more explicit in their criticism of Biden. In an opinion piece for Breitbart, conservative commentator Ben Shapiro said the vice president's statement was "race-baiting at its finest." Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, a Republican, declared on "Face the Nation" that it was "an absolutely blatant appeal to racism." Former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, also a Republican, accused Biden of "play[ing] the race card." Some Democrats agreed with the criticism. "First of all, without question they were appeals to race," said former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder. "The important thing I got out of this was Biden separated himself from what he accused the people of doing. As a matter of fact, what he said is they are going to do something to y'all, not to me. Not us. So he was still involved with that separate American." said CBS News reported that then-U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called Biden's comment "stupid" during a radio interview: reported "Was he talking about slavery? You bet your a** he was. Was he using the vernacular? Yes, he was," said Rangel, a longtime New York Democrat who is a founding member of the Congressional Black Caucus. "Did he think it was cute ... Yes, he did. Was it something stupid to say? You bet your life it was stupid." Rangel added that if an African-American had made the joke, "We would have been laughing, because we would know that deep down, they may be beating the hell out of us but they ain't thinking about putting us into any chains." Ebony magazine contributor Jamil Smith agreed with Rangel's perception that Biden was "using the vernacular," or "code-switching," as Smith called it, "to acclimate to a particular environment or audience." Phonetically rendered, this is what Biden actually said: "They gonna put y'all back in chains." But the vice president stood by the remark in an Aug. 14 campaign stop in Raleigh, North Carolina, insisting that the message he was trying to convey wasn't about race, but rather the negative impact the opposition party's vow to "unshackle Wall Street" would have on middle-class Americans: The last time these guys unshackled the economy, to use their term, they put the middle class in shackles. That's how we got where we are. Nine million jobs lost, wage stagnation, 16 trillion dollars in wealth you all lost, in your home equity, in your 401ks, and your pension plans you're the ones that got nailed. All of America except for the very few. And I'm told when I made that comment earlier today in Danville, Virginia, the Romney Campaign put out a Tweet, you know Tweets, and went on the air, went on the airwaves saying "Biden's outrageous in saying that I think I said, instead of unshackled, unchained or anyway, outrageous to say that, that's what we meant. I'm using their own words. I got a message for them, if you want to know want to know what's outrageous, it's their policies, and the effects of their policies on middle class America, that's what's outrageous. Biden had, in fact, used precisely the same trope before to characterize the impact of Republican economic policies on the middle class. The day after a Republican primary debate in October 2011, Biden said, referring to economic conditions under the George W. Bush administration: "The last time we liberated the economy under their proposals, the last eight years put the middle class in chains. My lord, how many times we have to go back to that horror movie?" said Obama took Biden's side, defending the Danville speech in an interview with People magazine: interview Biden's comment sparked Romney to call the Obama campaign one of "division and hate and anger." But Obama, speaking to PEOPLE in Dubuque, Iowa, seemed unrattled by the controversy. He said Biden's words needed to be considered in context; that he was only saying "you, consumers, the American people, will be a lot worse off if we repeal these [Wall Street reform] laws as the other side is suggesting." "In no sense was he trying to connote something other than that," Obama added. The racial composition of the audience is relevant to this debate, though not decisive, partly because estimates in the press were rough and contradictory. Although it was consistently reported that approximately 900 people were in attendance, and we know, from both press reports and video of the event, that a significant percentage of the attendees were Black, the media couldn't agree on whether more Black people were present than white people, fewer Black people than white people, or roughly the same number of each. The majority of mainstream news outlets reported that the audience was "predominantly," "largely," or "mostly" Black. Among these were the Los Angeles Times, Politico, CBS News, Fox News, The Daily Beast, National Public Radio, and NBC News. Significantly fewer outlets reported that the audience was "about 50%" Black. Some described it as "racially mixed." A small minority of venues said the makeup of the crowd was "partially" Black. We asked Tiffany Holland, a reporter who live-blogged the event for the Richmond Times-Dispatch website, for her impression of the racial makeup of the crowd. "If memory serves, the crowd was about half-African-American and half-white," she said in an email, adding that in her experience, Democratic Party events in Danville usually drew a "healthy mix of diversity." But she also said that this was just the impression she came away with, and could be remembering it wrongly. In any case, even if only 50% of the attendees were Black, Biden would have found himself gazing out over an audience that included hundreds of Black faces. The crowd need not have been "predominantly" Black to inspire a politician so inclined to engage in racial pandering. That Biden uttered the sentence "They gonna put y'all back in chains" before just such a crowd stands confirmed. Whether it should taken as a racially charged, pandering reference to slavery we leave it to readers to judge for themselves. Berg, Rebecca. "Biden Warns Romney Policies Would Put Crowd 'Back in Chains.'" The New York Times ("The Caucus" blog). 14 August 2012. Cain, Andrew. "In Danville, Biden Says Romney's Policies Will 'Put Y'all Back in Chains.'" Richmond Times-Dispatch. 14 August 2012. Condon, Stephanie. "Rangel: Biden's Gaffe Was Clearly About Slavery." CBS News. 24 August 2012. Holland, Steve and Jeff Mason. "Biden Draws Romney's Ire with 'Chains' Comment." Reuters. 14 August 2012. Holland, Tiffany. "Biden: We Need to Finish What Obama Started." Richmond Times-Dispatch. 14 August 2012. Montopoli, Brian. "Joe Biden Clarifies 'in Chains' Remark." CBS News. 14 August 2012. O'Neil, Luke. "I Am a Gaffe Machine': A History of Joe Biden's Biggest Blunders." The Guardian. 25 April 2019. Rainey, James. "Joe Biden Used 'Chains' Metaphor Before to Hit Republicans." Los Angeles Times. 15 August 2012. Roberts, Allison. "Before VP Visit, Lots of Prep." GoDanRiver.com. 17 August 2012. Schwarz, Gabriella. "Biden Hits Cain's '9-9-9' Plan." CNN. 12 October 2011. Shapiro, Ben. "Biden in 49% Black Danville, VA: 'They Gonna Put Y'All Back in Chains." Breitbart. 14 August 2012. Shield, Gerry. "Republicans Blast Biden for 'Chains' Remark." New York Post. 20 August 2012. Smith, Jamil. "Biden 'Unchained.'" Ebony. 17 August 2012. Tau, Byron. "Obama Defends Biden on 'Chains' Remark." Politico. 15 August 2012. Westfall, Sandra Sobieraj. "President Obama: No Apologies, No Scolding for Joe Biden's Remark." < em>People. 15 August 2012. Wise, Scott. "Doug Wilder Criticizes Biden, 'Chains' Comment." WTVR. 16 August 2012. C-SPAN. "Vice President Joe Biden in Danville, Virginia. 14 August 2012. MSNBC. "Obama Campaign Backs Biden's Controversial 'Chains' Remark." 16 August 2012.

True

In the early months of 2024, as U.S. President Joe Biden ramped up his campaign for reelection in November, a controversial, years-old quote attributed to him was resurrected on social media. Biden, whose public verbal blunders are so legendary he has described himself as a "gaffe machine," allegedly told a racially mixed audience at a Danville, Virginia, campaign rally in 2012 that the Republican Party was going to "put y'all back in chains."That notorious statement, which surfaced in late April and early May 2019 (shortly after Biden announced his 2020 candidacy), was cited anew on platforms from X to TikTok as an instance of his "playing the race card" to disparage Republicans:Although it's unclear, based on contemporaneous press coverage of the event, whether the audience was most accurately described as "predominantly" or "largely" Black (more about which later), Biden did in fact utter the words attributed to him at an Aug. 14, 2012, rally attended by a racially mixed crowd that included hundreds of Black attendees. The following report is from the New York Times blog "The Caucus," posted the same day as the event:The moment was captured for posterity in a C-SPAN video.Some Democrats agreed with the criticism. "First of all, without question they were appeals to race," said former Virginia Gov. Doug Wilder. "The important thing I got out of this was Biden separated himself from what he accused the people of doing. As a matter of fact, what he said is they are going to do something to y'all, not to me. Not us. So he was still involved with that separate American."CBS News reported that then-U.S. Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., called Biden's comment "stupid" during a radio interview:Biden had, in fact, used precisely the same trope before to characterize the impact of Republican economic policies on the middle class. The day after a Republican primary debate in October 2011, Biden said, referring to economic conditions under the George W. Bush administration: "The last time we liberated the economy under their proposals, the last eight years put the middle class in chains. My lord, how many times we have to go back to that horror movie?"Obama took Biden's side, defending the Danville speech in an interview with People magazine:

FMD_train_13

Did Donald Trump 'Save' the NYC Vets Day Parade in 1995?

11/13/2019

A story from 1995 resurfaced around Veterans Day 2019, reporting that then-private citizen and real estate mogul Donald Trump had "saved" the Veterans Day parade that year in New York City when organizers ran out of money. On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated: headline campaign website Mr. Trump has long been a devoted supporter of veteran causes. In 1995, the fiftieth anniversary of World War II, only 100 spectators watched New York Citys Veteran Day Parade. It was an insult to all veterans. Approached by Mayor Rudy Giuliani and the chief of New York Citys FBI office, Mr. Trump agreed to lead as Grand Marshall a second parade later that year. Mr. Trump made a $1 million matching donation to finance the Nations Day Parade. On Saturday, November 11th, over 1.4 million watched as Mr. Trump marched down Fifth Avenue with more than 25,000 veterans, some dressed in their vintage uniforms. A month later, Mr. Trump was honored in the Pentagon during a lunch with the Secretary of Defense and the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff. First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995 the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II." reported We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago. article The 1995 Times article reported that Trump did make a financial contribution, but that he tried to make it in exchange for being named the parade's grand marshal even though he is not a veteran. The Times reported Trump gave $200,000, not $1 million: By mid-August, organizers had a bank account of exactly $1.21. A request to airlines to donate blankets for aging veterans was turned down because logos might not be visible on television. Then Donald Trump, a nonveteran, agreed to throw in $200,000 as well as raise money from his friends, in exchange for being named grand marshal. Since then, money has come in, though not enough to meet the original budget, which was reduced from $2.9 million to $2.4 million. Fireworks were just one of many cuts. In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans. CNN In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance: reported Also in the reviewing stand was the developer Donald Trump, who provided the only note of controversy in an otherwise positive day. Many veterans were angry that organizers had agreed to name Mr. Trump, who is not a veteran, as grand marshal in exchange for his contribution of $200,000 and help in raising additional funds. Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key: UPI Police estimated 500,000 people attended the largest military parade ever held in New York. Organizers, who placed the turnout at closer to a million, said the parade would not have been a success if it hadn't been for real estate developer Donald Trump, who contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000. "Donald Trump saved the parade," said parade director Tom Fox, himself a Vietnam veteran. "We had asked for donations from 200 corporations, and none of them came through," he said. "This donation is the single most important thing I've ever done," said a beaming Trump. "This is more important than all of my buildings and my casinos. This is my way of saying thank you to all the men and women in the armed services who have made it possible for me to become a success. Without them freedom and liberty would be gone." In sum, we are rating this claim "True" because two individuals involved with the planning of the 1995 parade stated on two separate occasions that Trump's efforts and donation did indeed enable the event to take place. Still unclear are the origins of other sources of funding. Martin, Douglas."Veterans Day Parade Tries for a Comeback." The New York Times.10 November 1995. Fitzpatrick, David and Curt Devine."Trump Will Give $1 Million to Marine Charity, but There Are Other Discrepancies." CNN.25 May 2016. McFadden, Robert D. "On Parade To the Beat of History." The New York Times.12 November 1995. UPI."More Than 500,000 Watch Nation's Parade." 11 November 1995.

True

On Nov. 6, 2019, for example, the Daily Caller News Foundation website published a story bearing the headline, "The 1995 NYC Veterans Day Parade Had $1.21 In The Bank. Then Donald Trump Stepped In." A meme circulating on Facebook similarly described Trump's intervention:This claim apparently originated with Trump himself, or at least it was touted on his campaign website in the lead-up to the 2016 presidential election. The website at the time stated:First off, Trump's website contained some confusing pieces of misinformation: The Veterans Day parade in New York City went by the name the "Nation's Parade." The poorly attended parade "with only 100 spectators" occurred in 1994, not 1995 (The New York Times reported police did not give a crowd estimate). Only one Veteran's Day parade took place in the city in 1995 the Nation's Parade on Nov. 11. That event was slated by the U.S. Defense Department as representing "the official close of the 50th anniversary of World War II."We contacted the United War Veterans of New York (UWNY), which organized the Nation's Parade in 1995, to ask about claims that Trump's intervention saved the event from cancellation, and we were referred by spokesman Pat Smith to a Nov. 10, 1995, New York Times article about the event. Smith told us that Trump did make a financial contribution toward the parade, but also said UWNY is a small, volunteer-staffed group that doesn't keep records that could answer questions in detail about an event that occurred more than two decades ago.In May 2016, CNN spoke to Vincent McGowan, the president emeritus of UWNY who organized the parade in 1995. McGowan said that Trump's contribution was "somewhere between $325,000 and $375,000," but McGowan also said Trump's donation did save the event. McGowan also said Trump was never the grand marshal because that honor was only given to military veterans.In a follow-up story, the Times in 1995 reported that organizers had agreed to make Trump the parade's grand marshal, a move that had angered some veterans, while others expressed appreciation for his "crucial" financial assistance:Another story, dated Nov. 11, 1995, from the news service UPI, reported that Trump contributed $200,000 and raised another $300,000 for the parade, which was viewed by parade Director Tom Fox as having been key:

FMD_train_1339

Was a Florida Man Arrested After Throwing a Christmas Tree at His Wife?

01/04/2023

In early January 2023, we received reader mail that asked if it was true that a Florida man was arrested after allegedly throwing a Christmas tree at his wife. Attached to one reader's email was a screenshot of a headline that read, "Florida man arrested, allegedly struck wife with Christmas tree." We found that this was a real headline publishedby ABC6 News on WATE.com, as well as other local news websites. The article cited reporting fromFox 35 Orlando, which was originally printed on Dec. 13, 2022. WATE.com Fox 35 Orlando According to the story, 52-year-old Richard Atchison had allegedly thrown a Christmas tree at his wife after drinking alcohol.The arrest occurred on the night of Dec. 12 in the city of Fruitland Park. We confirmed via the Lake County Sheriff's Department website that Atchison was arrested at 7:16 p.m. local time on suspicion of false imprisonment, violation of injunction, and battery. According to the records, this was Atchison's second time arrested on suspicion of battery. He was released the following day. website By email, the Lake County Sheriff's Office provided us with the arrest affidavit, written by Officer K. Richetti. It read as follows: The defendant stated the victim slammed a utensil into hot food which in turn splashed the right side of his face. The defendant advised he "lost his temper" and stated he was leaving, packed clothes, and walked out to his truck. The defendant then decided to return to the residence, as he had been drinking and told the victim to leave instead. The defendant stated the argument was verbal only and no physical contact was made that evening. I then spoke with the victim, who advised she was making dinner when the defendant became angry with her for asking for help. They engaged in a verbal argument, at which point she put a spoon in the sink, accidentally, splashing the defendant and escalating his temper. The defendant began packing his things and went out to his vehicle. The defendant then returned stating she should be the one to leave. The victim attempted to leave out the front door, but the defendant used both hands and pushed the victim in her shoulder area away from the door, to which she stumbled. The victim then went into the living room and sat with her friend. The defendant picked up the Christmas tree in the corner of the room and threw it towards the kitchen, where it broke in half. The defendant then took the Christmas tree and threw it at the victim, subsequently striking her. The victim went into her bedroom and closed the door, in an attempt to separate herself from the defendant. At this time, the defendant kicked the bedroom door attempting to enter. The victim again tried to leave through the front door, but the defendant was blocking the exit and was yelling at her when law enforcement arrived. It should be noted that the front door is the only door to exit located within the residence. I observed no visible redness or injuries on the defendant. I observed slight redness to the victim's left and right arms, but no other visible injuries. I observed a partial black shoe print on the lower center half of the bedroom door. According to the rest of the affidavit, a witness corroborated the victim's story, including the part about Atchison throwing the Christmas tree. FOX 35 News Staff. "Florida Man Accused of Hitting Wife with Christmas Tree after Asked to Help with Dinner." FOX 35 Orlando, 13 Dec. 2022, https://www.fox35orlando.com/news/florida-man-accused-of-attacking-wife-with-christmas-tree-when-asked-to-help-with-making-dinner. "Richard Daniel Atchison." Lake County Sheriff's Office, 12 Dec. 2022, https://www.lcso.org/inmates/mugshot_booking_detail.php?bookingnumber=22008209. Richetti, Officer K.Arrest Affidavit/First Appearance Form for Richard Daniel Atchison. Lake County Sheriff's Office, 12 Dec. 2022. Sloan, Kaycee. "Florida Man Arrested, Allegedly Struck Wife with Christmas Tree." WATE 6 On Your Side, 15 Dec. 2022, https://www.wate.com/news/florida-man-arrested-allegedly-struck-wife-with-christmas-tree/.

True

We found that this was a real headline publishedby ABC6 News on WATE.com, as well as other local news websites. The article cited reporting fromFox 35 Orlando, which was originally printed on Dec. 13, 2022.We confirmed via the Lake County Sheriff's Department website that Atchison was arrested at 7:16 p.m. local time on suspicion of false imprisonment, violation of injunction, and battery. According to the records, this was Atchison's second time arrested on suspicion of battery. He was released the following day.

FMD_train_435

Target Voucher/Gift Card Scam

11/21/2012

Claim: Target is distributing free $500 vouchers or $1000 gift cards to users who click an online link. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, November 2012] There is a Facebook post that states if you share a Target ad that says get a free $500 Target voucher, write the comment, "Thank you Target" and the click like you will get a voucher for that amount. Get Free $500 target voucher Now (97 Left) text message received: "Your entry last month has WON! Go to https://targetcontest.com/ and enter code 4787 to claim your FREE $1000 Target Gift Card within 24 hours!" Origins: In mid-November 2012, a survey scam purporting to offer free $500 Target vouchers or $1000 gift cards to those who followed particular links then did as told once there spread via e-mail, Facebook, and text message. Those links led to web pages (which were not operated or sponsored by Target) that asked the unwary to click what appeared to be Facebook "share" buttons and post comments to the scammer's site (which was really a ruse to dupe users into spreading the scam by sharing it with all of their Facebook friends). Those who followed such instructions were then led into a set of pages prompting them to input a fair amount of personal information (including name, age, address, and phone numbers), complete a lengthy series of surveys, and finally sign up (and commit to paying) for at least two "Reward Offers" (e.g., Netflix subscriptions, credit report monitoring services, prepaid credit cards): Pursuant to the Terms & Conditions, you are required to complete 2 of the Reward Offers from the above. You will need to meet all of the terms and conditions to qualify for the shipment of the reward. For credit card offers, you must activate your card by making a purchase, transferring a balance, or making a cash advance. For loan offers you must close and fund the loan. For home security and satellite tv offers you must have the product installed. You may not cancel your participation in more than a total of 2 Reward Offers within 30 days of any Reward Offer Sign-Up Date as outlined in the Terms & Conditions (the Cancellation Limit). Not only that, but the fine print on the "free" gift card offer stated that by accepting its terms, the user agreed to receive telemarketing phone calls and text messages from a variety of different companies. Other recent survey scams of similar construction include: $500 or $1,000 Target gift cards [November 2012] Target $100 or $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] Walmart $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] Starbucks $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Tim Hortons Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011] Apple Last updated: 24 November 2012 CBS 4 [Denver]. "Walmart Gift Card Text Hits Phones Across Denver Metro Area." 7 March 2012.

NEI

$500 or $1,000 Target gift cards [November 2012] $100 or $1,000 Walmart gift cards [March 2012] $50 or $100 Starbucks gift cards [October 2011] $25 Tim Hortons gift cards [October 2011] Apple iPods, iPhones, or MacBooks in memory of Steve Jobs [October 2011]

FMD_train_945

I took over the school district when it had a $1 billion structural deficit and left them with $1 billion in cash and 70,000 more students than they have today.

01/06/2019

A big part of the mayoral campaign of Paul Vallas relies on his six-year record as CEO of the Chicago Public Schools under former Mayor Richard Daley. And the theme that Vallas often falls back on is that he was a turnaround specialist who revived a very troubled school system and left it in better financial and academic shape than he found it. I took over the school district when it had a $1 billion structural deficit and left them with $1 billion in cash and 70,000 more students than they have today, Vallas declared in a New Years Eve interviewon WGN radio. Ive always been a problem-solver. My approach has always been to go in, bring financial stability to the systems that Ive taken responsibility for, design budgets that are long-term financial plans that actually invest in the community to generate growth. Vallas is facing a crowded field of contenders in next months city elections to replace the retiring Rahm Emanuel as mayor, and the flagging condition of the citys public schools will be sure to present a major test for whichever candidate prevails. Having a proven track record as a school fix-it specialist could be a big plus for Vallas. But how valid are his claims? We decided to take a look. Vallas claims raise two questions. First, whether his basic facts check out. Second, whether they can be credited to his leadership. News clips and columns from the Vallas era at CPS, which began in 1995, back up the first beat of his claim. They note that district leaders had projected before he took over that CPS was on track to run a deficit of more than $1 billion by 1999. Under Vallas, that huge deficit never materialized, and district financial records he pointed to show that by his last year at the helm in 2001 CPS claimed a positive balance of nearly $1 billion in all of its financial accounts. But can Vallas credit his policy decisions entirely for that transformation? Not exactly. In 1995, lawmakers in Springfield turned over control of the district, which was facing one of many financial crises, to Mayor Richard M. Daley. He named Vallas, who had been serving as his budget director, chief executive officer. Daley also appointed Gery Chico, now a mayoral opponent of Vallas, as school board president. But the new guard at CPS also got to play by a different set of financial rules. Instead of receiving state aid earmarked for specific purposes, for example, the district started getting a significant amount of funding in the form of a block grant. Another big change that helped un-tie its fiscal hands: Lawmakers allowed property tax dollars, which had previously flowed directly into the pension fund for teachers, to go to CPS instead. And in 1997, legislators permitted the district to forego payments into the pension fund provided it hit benchmarks signifying sound fiscal health. He was not operating under the same conditions as the CEO that existed prior to 1995, said Amanda Kass, associate director of the Government Finance Research Center at the University of Illinois-Chicago. During Vallas six years with the district, and for several years following his tenure, CPS paid next to nothing toward teacher pension costs. The Vallas era at CPS coincided with the dot.com bubble that sent markets soaring, helping the pension fund stay healthy even without the annual injections of cash it began missing out on. Had Springfield not changed the law, the CPS teacher pension fund would have been paid$90millionin 1995 to cover the employer share of pension costs that year. Instead, it got $10 million. Over the next decade, the fund was out$2billion. We asked Vallas in a phone interview why he opted to stop pension payments. The system was earning such strong returns, it didnt require that we make contributions during those few years, he explained. Kass said its considered best practice for local governments to continue employer share contributions regardless of the financial health of pension funds something the 1997 law did not require. Had CPS continued contributions during the Vallas years, the pension fund would have had more cushion to weather the financial recessions that hit in 2001 and again in 2008, she explained. That said, Kass added that her observations come with the benefit of hindsight after watching the pension fund balance worsen dramatically after Vallas left and his successors continued to put off payments even as the funds fiscal viability declined. I do think that Vallas inherited a challenging situation, Kass said, noting that ratings of CPS bonds improved significantly during his tenure and enabled a system all but shut out of the credit markets to begin borrowing again. In short, CPS was on the financial ropes before Vallas took over but made significant fiscal strides under him. Changes in state law, however, gave him far more financial flexibility to operate than his predecessors. In touting his success as CEO, Vallas also pointed to the size of the district under his watch compared with much-diminished enrollment figures of today. Enrollment is important as a symbol of how attractive CPS is to families of school age children, but it also carries real financial weight because the fewer students attending classes the less state aid the district gets. Vallas numbers are roughly accurate. CPS enrollment stood at nearly 425,000 when he left the district, but now sits at about 361,000,stateandCPS figuresshow. But in using enrollment data as a measuring stick of his success, Vallas ignores significant demographic changes in the city since his time at CPS that render such a comparison misleading. Chicago saw a period of population growth in the 1990s due in large part to a substantial increase in immigrants, largely from Mexico. With that increase in immigration came an influx of students into CPS, said Chicago demographer Rob Paral. The stuff going on demographically today is quite different than the forces that were in play in the 90s, he said. Chicago was a huge magnet for all that 90s immigration. In the years after Vallas left CPS, the immigrant population of the city stopped growing and the African-American population began a significant decline. Minority students make up about 90 percent of CPS enrollment, so the changing demographics had a significant impact at the schools. Vallas said, I took over the school district when it had a $1 billion structural deficit and left them with $1 billion in cash and 70,000 more students than they have today. The bond rating and bottom line at CPS did improve significantly under Vallas, but new laws passed in Springfield also removed fiscal handcuffs which gave him more flexibility to manage the districts finances than his predecessors enjoyed. And he is correct that CPS has nearly 70,000 fewer students today than in 2001 when he departed. But that is due at least in part to significant demographic changes in Chicago outside the control of any schools chief. His claim is accurate but requires additional information to understand the context. We rate it Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click herefor moreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

True

I took over the school district when it had a $1 billion structural deficit and left them with $1 billion in cash and 70,000 more students than they have today, Vallas declared in a New Years Eve interviewon WGN radio. Ive always been a problem-solver. My approach has always been to go in, bring financial stability to the systems that Ive taken responsibility for, design budgets that are long-term financial plans that actually invest in the community to generate growth.Had Springfield not changed the law, the CPS teacher pension fund would have been paid$90millionin 1995 to cover the employer share of pension costs that year. Instead, it got $10 million. Over the next decade, the fund was out$2billion.Vallas numbers are roughly accurate. CPS enrollment stood at nearly 425,000 when he left the district, but now sits at about 361,000,stateandCPS figuresshow.Click herefor moreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_1503

Roof Despair Fund

06/25/2015

FACT CHECK: HasCharleston shooting suspectDylann Roof's defense fund received more than $4 million in donations from supporters? Claim: Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Roof's defense fund received more than $4 million in donations from supporters. Example: [Collected via e-mail and Twitter, June 2015] Is there any truth to this article at this time. Of course I am confident it is a matter of time before this happens. Origins: On 25 June 2015, the websiteNewsWatch33 published an article titled "Charleston Church Shooter Dylann Roof Receives $4 Million in Donations from Supporters." According to that article, a group called Citizens For White Rights somehow managed to quietly drum up the exorbitant sum of $4 million in donations for an accused racially motivated mass shooter in just over a week, without any other media outlets taking notice: As he waits for his trial, supporters of Dylann Roof across America have banded together to fund raise for Roof's legal protection. According to the most recent information provided by the Citizens For White Rights, who is managing the account receiving the donations, they've raised a little over $4 Million for Roof's legal fees and possible bond money. Michael Lawson, attorney for Citizens For White Rights released this statement Our organization wants to ensure that Dylann Roof receives fair and equal treatment under the laws of our nation. With all of the publicity this recent incident is receiving along with the Black Organizations looking to make our client guilty, it's important that Dylann Roof is protected. The donations we are receiving will ensure his protection as we wait for trial as well as when the trial begins. The following screenshot was appended to the page, purportedly showing the balance of a fund raised for Roof's defense: However,this article is nothing but fiction; and its source, NewsWatch33, is a fake news site that coincidentally appeared on the scene just after the very similar NewsWatch28 fake news site apparently shut down likely a switch intended to keep its operators one step ahead of Facebook's clampdown on purveyors of hoaxes. NewsWatch28 clampdown A Google search for "Citizens for White Rights" turns up no organization by that name. While it's possible (maybe even likely) that some donors have contributed money for Dylann Roof's defense, we've found no evidence of any extant campaign openly soliciting such funds. search Last updated: 25June 2015 Originally published: 25June 2015

False

However,this article is nothing but fiction; and its source, NewsWatch33, is a fake news site that coincidentally appeared on the scene just after the very similar NewsWatch28 fake news site apparently shut down likely a switch intended to keep its operators one step ahead of Facebook's clampdown on purveyors of hoaxes.A Google search for "Citizens for White Rights" turns up no organization by that name. While it's possible (maybe even likely) that some donors have contributed money for Dylann Roof's defense, we've found no evidence of any extant campaign openly soliciting such funds.

FMD_train_992

Nebraska School Bans Genders in Favor of 'Purple Penguins'

10/09/2014

A school district in Lincoln, Nebraska, has banned the use of gender pronouns and ordered teachers to use neutral terms such as "purple penguins" instead. Lincoln Public Schools have provided educators with materials to help them better understand gender identity issues. The Lincoln school district has banned all references to gender in favor of calling students "purple penguins." For example, a Nebraska school district has instructed its teachers to stop referring to students with "gendered expressions" such as "boys and girls" and to use "gender-inclusive" terms like "purple penguins" instead. "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen,' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention," instructs a training document given to middle-school teachers at Lincoln Public Schools. On 8 October 2014, the National Review published an article concerning gender identity and inclusiveness training at Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) in Lincoln, Nebraska. According to that article, educators within the school district had been ordered to refrain from using specifically gendered terms when speaking or referring to students in favor of gender-neutral terms such as "purple penguins." The article made specific reference to materials provided by Gender Spectrum, an organization whose website states a goal of fostering a "gender-sensitive and inclusive environment for all children and teens." National Review cited paraphrased materials purportedly provided to educators that painted a picture of a full-scale ban on genders in the Lincoln school district. "Don't use phrases such as 'boys and girls,' 'you guys,' 'ladies and gentlemen,' and similarly gendered expressions to get kids' attention," instructs a training document given to middle-school teachers at Lincoln Public Schools. "Create classroom names and then ask all of the 'purple penguins' to meet on the rug," it advises. The document also warns against asking students to "line up as boys or girls" and suggests asking them to line up by whether they prefer "skateboards or bikes/milk or juice/dogs or cats/summer or winter/talking or listening." "Always ask yourself ... 'Will this configuration create a gendered space?'" the document says. Word of Lincoln Public Schools' gender inclusivity training quickly spread across blogs and Twitter, morphing into a cautionary tale of political correctness run rampant. Teachers are encouraged to hang signs on their classroom doors insisting that "all genders" are welcome while discontinuing the time-tested practice of lining boys and girls up separately before leaving class. "Instead," the guidelines dictate, "use things like 'odd and even birth dates.'" Educators should prominently display photographs of gender-benders in the classroom, the new policy insists, and give students at least four choices when it is imperative that gender be determined. Much of the airtime given to the matter of gender sensitivity training in Lincoln framed the materials supplied as mandates or rules imposed on all schools within the district. However, as Brenda Leggiardo, LPS coordinator of social workers and counselors, clarified to the Lincoln Journal Star after the issue gained widespread attention, the materials were provided as guidelines for educators to better understand gender identity issues and were not intended to impose rules mandating how those issues should be addressed. The handouts, provided by a staff member on a district equity team, were meant only for teachers, not for students or parents, she said. They were not meant as rules staff had to follow, but as suggestions for how teachers can make students feel comfortable. It also stresses the impact words can have on others, Leggiardo said. "If there's a staff member that's uninformed and unsupportive, that can be pretty scary for a family maybe struggling to understand transgender issues themselves," she said. LPS Superintendent Steve Joel also held a press conference to assert that the district had made no changes to their policies and imposed no mandates; the material in question consisted only of suggestions for "how teachers could reach all students in their classroom." Joel pushed back against what he said was a misinformed reaction to the district's gender identity training by national commentators and news outlets. "It's indeed regrettable that for the last week and a half we've had to dedicate as much staff time and resources to address an issue that is not founded in fact," he said at a news conference. "Never once has anyone inside our system mandated that a teacher take the words 'boys' and 'girls' or 'ladies' and 'gentlemen' out of their interactions with children or interaction with adults. There's no policy, there's no procedure, there's no changes being made to bathrooms in schools." Fox News and other national outlets picked up on local news reports about the district's gender identity training, specifically handouts used with teachers at Irving Middle School that included one from the nonprofit organization Gender Spectrum entitled "12 Easy Steps to Gender Inclusiveness." Joel said the handouts were suggestions and strategies, not mandates, about how teachers could reach all students in their classrooms. The training occurred at the request of an Irving teacher looking for guidance in dealing with students. "This was about adults, professional educators, who care deeply about trying to reach and establish relationships with children," Joel said. "They are looking for strategies about how to be more effective in the classroom." During administrative leadership days prior to the beginning of the school year, LPS officials shared several recent news stories about transgender persons to help administrators better understand the issues that face some students so they feel comfortable and welcome at school.

NEI

published an article concerning gender identity and inclusiveness training at Lincoln Public Schools (LPS) in Lincoln, Nebraska. According to that article, educators within the school district had been ordered to refrain from using specifically gendered terms when speaking or referring to students in favor of gender neutral terms such as "purple penguins." The article made specific reference to materials provided by Gender Spectrum, an organization whose website states a goal of fostering "gender sensitive and inclusive environment for all children and teens." National Review cited paraphrased materials purportedly provided to educators that painted a picture of a full-scale ban on genders in the Lincoln school district:

FMD_train_1437

Did Deutsche Bank provide funding for Auschwitz, Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and ISIS?

11/13/2020

On Nov. 11, 2020, Bloomberg reported that strategists at Deutsche Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, recommended levying a tax against people who plan to continue working from home, arguing that "remote workers should pay a tax for the privilege. At least on Twitter, this was a poorly received take. One particularly viral response alleged that the bank "funded Auschwitz, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and ISIS." reported response As we show below, the tweet is a largely accurate recounting of history, though the assertion that the bank funded ISIS overstates what is publicly known at this time. In 1999, during negotiations to merge with the New York-based Bankers Trust, the Germany-based Deutsche Bank disclosed that it had helped finance the construction of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz. As reported by Reuters at the time, Deutsche Bank's historian, Manfred Pohl, described the bank's loans to companies involved in multiple aspects of Auschwitz, including loans for construction of the camp and its incineration units, as well as to a company involved in the production of the deadly Zyklon-B gas, which the Nazis used to murder millions: reported Manfred Pohl, head of Deutsche Banks historical institute, said newly uncovered documents showed the bank had links with firms that built the camp in Poland. It also had credit links to one company that made incineration units and funded another whose subsidiary made the Zyklon-B gas used in the camp. On examination of credit records, we determined that branches . had credit links to local companies which were active at the construction site . in Auschwitz, Pohl said at a media briefing in Frankfurt. Pohl told reporters that the existence of these loans would have been known to high-ranking managers of the bank. "It is clear that this was known as high up at the main office in Katowice. It is not certain whether it was known in Berlin," Pohl said, though he added these loans would have had to be approved in Berlin to go ahead. Deutsche Bank has had a relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump since 1998. As reported in The New York Times, "Over the course of two decades, the bank lent him more than $2 billion so much that by the time he was elected, Deutsche Bank was by far his biggest creditor." Speaking to Reuters in November 2020, one bank official said that the Trump Organization currently has around $340 million in outstanding debt from the bank: reported Reuters Deutsche Bank has about $340 million in loans outstanding to the Trump Organization, the presidents umbrella group that is currently overseen by his two sons, according to filings made by Trump to the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in July and a senior source within the bank. The three loans, which are against Trump properties and start coming due in two years, are current on payments and personally guaranteed by the president, according to two bank officials. According to that Reuters report, the bank is looking to distance itself from the president moving forward. Their relationship with Trump "cemented Deutsche Banks reputation as a reckless institution willing to do business with clients nobody else would touch," they wrote. "It has made the company a magnet for prosecutors, regulators and lawmakers hoping to penetrate the presidents opaque financial affairs." Regardless, Trump's history with Deutsche Bank is factual and well known. Reuters According to a 2019 report by the New York State Department of Financial Services, "the relationship between Deutsche Bank and Mr. Epstein officially began on August 19, 2013" and eventually involved his opening and funding "more than 40 accounts at the Bank." 2019 report Controversially, they entered into business with Epstein after his 2008 arrest for the solicitation of a minor and after other media revelations about Epstein's alleged trafficking of underage women for sex. Some of these Deutsche Bank accounts were involved in suspicious transactions including, according to The New York Times, "suspiciously large cash withdrawals and 120 wire transfers totaling $2.65 million to women with Eastern European surnames and people who had been publicly identified as Mr. Epsteins co-conspirators." according In July 2020, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $150 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services "to settle allegations that it maintained weak internal controls, including processing hundreds of transactions for Jeffrey Epstein despite the billionaires troubled history." The bank has since apologized for its association with Epstein. apologized In the banking world, Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are notifications made by financial institutions to the United States government about potentially suspicious or illegal activity. A transaction labeled suspicious in these reports does not necessarily indicate illegal activity, however. SARs issued about transactions involving Deutsche Bank have been used to link them to ISIS in multiple investigations. made In December 2017, BuzzFeed News reported on SARs showing that Deutsche Bank had been engaged in business with a corrupt Cyprus bank named FBME that "served as a major conduit to terrorism, organized crime, and chemical weapons." The SARs revealed that "Deutsche processed hundreds of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions for FBME clients including a Kremlin-linked network of Russian slush funds funneling money to financiers of the Syrian regime and a businessman trading oil with ISIS." The reports do not indicate, however, that Deutsche Bank knowingly participated in illegal activity. reported In September 2020, the existence of an even larger trove of SARs obtained by BuzzFeed News and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was announced. The collaboration a project named the FinCEN files led to hundreds of stories in newsrooms across the world. One story, published by Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), identified further transactions that could point to a potential involvement of Deutsche Bank in the movement of funds to, from, and within ISIS held territory. FinCEN files story The files, ARIJ said, "reveal suspicious money transfers of at least $4 billion flagged by Deutsche Banks US branches and Bank of America to a number of Iraqi banks between June 15, 2014 and June 30, 2015." Though the files do not indicate which bank branches were used, they reported, "the transactions were sent and received during the height of the Islamic States reign and its control over several Iraqi bank branches." The report notes that "many of the banks in northern Iraq were in areas of IS [Islamic State] influence, and such transfers could be the proceeds of the illicit oil and gas trade that the organisation largely relied on in its areas of control." said While suggestive of an at least unwitting role for Deutsche Bank in ISIS related finances, these reports are not strong enough evidence to support the statement that Deutsche Bank "funds" ISIS. Because there is some truth to the ISIS claim, and because the other assertions are true, we rank the overall claim made in the viral tweet as "true."

True

On Nov. 11, 2020, Bloomberg reported that strategists at Deutsche Bank, one of the largest financial institutions in the world, recommended levying a tax against people who plan to continue working from home, arguing that "remote workers should pay a tax for the privilege. At least on Twitter, this was a poorly received take. One particularly viral response alleged that the bank "funded Auschwitz, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein and ISIS."In 1999, during negotiations to merge with the New York-based Bankers Trust, the Germany-based Deutsche Bank disclosed that it had helped finance the construction of the Nazi death camp Auschwitz. As reported by Reuters at the time, Deutsche Bank's historian, Manfred Pohl, described the bank's loans to companies involved in multiple aspects of Auschwitz, including loans for construction of the camp and its incineration units, as well as to a company involved in the production of the deadly Zyklon-B gas, which the Nazis used to murder millions:Deutsche Bank has had a relationship with U.S. President Donald Trump since 1998. As reported in The New York Times, "Over the course of two decades, the bank lent him more than $2 billion so much that by the time he was elected, Deutsche Bank was by far his biggest creditor." Speaking to Reuters in November 2020, one bank official said that the Trump Organization currently has around $340 million in outstanding debt from the bank:According to that Reuters report, the bank is looking to distance itself from the president moving forward. Their relationship with Trump "cemented Deutsche Banks reputation as a reckless institution willing to do business with clients nobody else would touch," they wrote. "It has made the company a magnet for prosecutors, regulators and lawmakers hoping to penetrate the presidents opaque financial affairs." Regardless, Trump's history with Deutsche Bank is factual and well known.According to a 2019 report by the New York State Department of Financial Services, "the relationship between Deutsche Bank and Mr. Epstein officially began on August 19, 2013" and eventually involved his opening and funding "more than 40 accounts at the Bank."Controversially, they entered into business with Epstein after his 2008 arrest for the solicitation of a minor and after other media revelations about Epstein's alleged trafficking of underage women for sex. Some of these Deutsche Bank accounts were involved in suspicious transactions including, according to The New York Times, "suspiciously large cash withdrawals and 120 wire transfers totaling $2.65 million to women with Eastern European surnames and people who had been publicly identified as Mr. Epsteins co-conspirators."In July 2020, Deutsche Bank agreed to pay $150 million to the New York State Department of Financial Services "to settle allegations that it maintained weak internal controls, including processing hundreds of transactions for Jeffrey Epstein despite the billionaires troubled history." The bank has since apologized for its association with Epstein.In the banking world, Suspicious Activity Reports (SARs) are notifications made by financial institutions to the United States government about potentially suspicious or illegal activity. A transaction labeled suspicious in these reports does not necessarily indicate illegal activity, however. SARs issued about transactions involving Deutsche Bank have been used to link them to ISIS in multiple investigations.In December 2017, BuzzFeed News reported on SARs showing that Deutsche Bank had been engaged in business with a corrupt Cyprus bank named FBME that "served as a major conduit to terrorism, organized crime, and chemical weapons." The SARs revealed that "Deutsche processed hundreds of millions of dollars of suspicious transactions for FBME clients including a Kremlin-linked network of Russian slush funds funneling money to financiers of the Syrian regime and a businessman trading oil with ISIS." The reports do not indicate, however, that Deutsche Bank knowingly participated in illegal activity.In September 2020, the existence of an even larger trove of SARs obtained by BuzzFeed News and shared with the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists (ICIJ) was announced. The collaboration a project named the FinCEN files led to hundreds of stories in newsrooms across the world. One story, published by Arab Reporters for Investigative Journalism (ARIJ), identified further transactions that could point to a potential involvement of Deutsche Bank in the movement of funds to, from, and within ISIS held territory.The files, ARIJ said, "reveal suspicious money transfers of at least $4 billion flagged by Deutsche Banks US branches and Bank of America to a number of Iraqi banks between June 15, 2014 and June 30, 2015." Though the files do not indicate which bank branches were used, they reported, "the transactions were sent and received during the height of the Islamic States reign and its control over several Iraqi bank branches." The report notes that "many of the banks in northern Iraq were in areas of IS [Islamic State] influence, and such transfers could be the proceeds of the illicit oil and gas trade that the organisation largely relied on in its areas of control."

FMD_train_360

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

04/02/2019

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_326

If upstate New York split from downstate the economic indicators of upstate New York would be among the lowest in the country.

09/16/2016

Former Lt. Governor Robert Duffy pennedan op-edpiece in the Rochester Business Journal urging upstate lawmakers to form their own caucus. Doing so would help them press upstate issues in a state legislature dominated by downstate lawmakers. But upstate New York breaking from downstate entirely? Duffy called the idea ludicrous. If we ever did that, the economic indicators of upstate New York would be among the lowest in the country, Duffy claimed. We do count on downstate to carry much of the load for the economic health of New York. Calls for upstate to secede from New York State are not new. But secession gained steam last year when upstate advocates pitched the idea at aprotestin the Southern Tier. Some were angry over gun control laws passed in 2013. Others were upset by the ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, because they believe the gas drilling process would boost that regions struggling economy. One of the leading secession proponents, the Divide NYS Caucus, hopes for momentum to build ahead of a future Constitutional Convention in New York State. Voters will decide whether to hold a convention in the 2017 general election. Downstate hasa bigger populationthan upstate. The Assembly is comfortably in the hands of lawmakers from New York City and the surrounding area, most of whom are Democrats. The State Senate, meanwhile, is controlled by Republicans, mostly from upstate and Long Island. Is Duffy right? Would upstates economy rank low on its own? The Greater Rochester Chamber of Commerce was not able to tell us which economic indicators Duffy was referring to. We looked at two indicators typically used to measure the economy - unemployment and wages - to check his claim. The unemployment scorecard As ofJuly, the statewide unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Thats better than the national average of 4.9 percent. But New York State still ranks 25th in the nation, tied with three other states. Duffy says the line dividing upstate from downstate is the same used in this yearsminimum wage hike. In that deal, New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County were given a different timeline to reach the higher wage than the rest of the state. Our analysis uses the same method: We define upstate as everything north of New York City except for Westchester County. Theres no data publicly available that shows unemployment for this definition of upstate. We used county-level data from state and federal databases to evaluate Duffys claim. The unemployment rate in upstate New York is 4.6 percent, according to the latest data from the state Department of Labor. That number is an average of thecountiesweve defined as upstate. Thats better than the statewide average and would rank 23rd in the nation - ahead of the statewide ranking. The wage scorecard Income per capita is different than the average wage. It measures how much money someone takes in, whether its earned at a job or not, instead of just measuring how much a job pays. We looked at both. In upstate, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita income was $40,123 at the end of 2014, the latest county-level data. Upstate would have ranked 37th in the nation that year, below the national average of $46,049. New York State as a whole rankedfifththat year. As for wages, only Washington, D.C., had a higher average wage than New York States $67,521. The national average is $52,942. The average wage upstate was $42,287 by the end of 2015, according todatafrom the U.S. Department of Labor. If it was its own state, upstate would rank 44th for wages, ahead of South Carolina but behind New Mexico. Our ruling Duffy wrote in the Rochester Business Journal that the economic indicators of upstate New York would be among the lowest in the country if the region split from downstate. We compared national data on unemployment and wages to county-level data to rate his claim. With Duffys definition of upstate New York, unemployment is close to the national average while wages and income are among the lowest in the country according to the latest data. We rate this claim as Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/fa7c54fa-de00-4abc-9ed1-8e386ceaf46c

True

Former Lt. Governor Robert Duffy pennedan op-edpiece in the Rochester Business Journal urging upstate lawmakers to form their own caucus. Doing so would help them press upstate issues in a state legislature dominated by downstate lawmakers.Calls for upstate to secede from New York State are not new. But secession gained steam last year when upstate advocates pitched the idea at aprotestin the Southern Tier. Some were angry over gun control laws passed in 2013. Others were upset by the ban on hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, because they believe the gas drilling process would boost that regions struggling economy.Downstate hasa bigger populationthan upstate. The Assembly is comfortably in the hands of lawmakers from New York City and the surrounding area, most of whom are Democrats. The State Senate, meanwhile, is controlled by Republicans, mostly from upstate and Long Island.As ofJuly, the statewide unemployment rate was 4.7 percent, according to the U.S. Department of Labor. Thats better than the national average of 4.9 percent. But New York State still ranks 25th in the nation, tied with three other states.Duffy says the line dividing upstate from downstate is the same used in this yearsminimum wage hike. In that deal, New York City, Long Island, and Westchester County were given a different timeline to reach the higher wage than the rest of the state. Our analysis uses the same method: We define upstate as everything north of New York City except for Westchester County.The unemployment rate in upstate New York is 4.6 percent, according to the latest data from the state Department of Labor. That number is an average of thecountiesweve defined as upstate. Thats better than the statewide average and would rank 23rd in the nation - ahead of the statewide ranking.In upstate, according to the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis, the per capita income was $40,123 at the end of 2014, the latest county-level data. Upstate would have ranked 37th in the nation that year, below the national average of $46,049. New York State as a whole rankedfifththat year.The average wage upstate was $42,287 by the end of 2015, according todatafrom the U.S. Department of Labor. If it was its own state, upstate would rank 44th for wages, ahead of South Carolina but behind New Mexico.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/fa7c54fa-de00-4abc-9ed1-8e386ceaf46c

FMD_train_1431

Did Teen Activist Greta Thunberg Tell China to Stop Using Chopsticks?

05/19/2020

Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg has been the subject of a number of baseless rumors ever since the then-15-year-old stepped into the spotlight in 2018. We've previously examined false accusations that Thunberg was the "highest paid activist," that she was actually an actress, and that she was once filmed firing a machine gun. highest paid activist actually an actress firing a machine gun In May 2020, after Thunberg was invited to participate in a CNN Town Hall, an old rumor concerning a quote ostensibly uttered by the activist about how China should stop using chopsticks was recirculated on social media: participate Thunberg did not ask China to "give up" chopsticks. This rumor has been circulating since at least January 2020. Although it has taken several forms, we've yet to encounter any social media posts pointing to when or where Thunberg allegedly made this request. One of the earliest postings of this rumor, which was shared by the unverified Twitter account @Geoloong on Jan. 14, included a GIF of Thunberg speaking at the Climate Action Summit in 2019, but Thunberg made no mention of "chopsticks" during this speech. We searched other articles, interviews, and speeches delivered by Thunberg around this time and found no record of her asking China to ban chopsticks. Geoloong no mention Other red flags in this post indicate the rumor is little more than an invented anecdote to mock the teenager. For starters, we found that this story was being shared almost exclusively by people expressing a negative view of Thunberg. If this was a genuine quote, you'd expect this story would have been shared (at least initially) by Thunberg's supporters. Furthermore, the anecdote described in this post is simply ludicrous. Although it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Thunberg, a teenager who became Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year for her work addressing climate change, to note the adverse environmental impact of disposable chopsticks, it would be quite extraordinary for the government of the most populous country in the world to issue a juvenile response telling someone not to "wipe their butt" because toilet paper is made from trees. Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year adverse environmental impact If China did issue such a statement, it would have surely been international news. Yet, just as we were unable to find a source for Thunberg's alleged comment, we were unable to find a credible source for China's alleged insult. In fact, the text on the above-displayed meme is a near-verbatim copy of the text published to the humor website Joe.ks.com. Joe.ks.com. Although Thunberg did not urge China to ban the use of chopsticks, China truly uses millions of trees every year to produce billions of pairs of disposable chopsticks. When concerns about the adverse impact disposable chopsticks had on the environment were raised in 2006, the Chinese government implemented a 5% tax on the utensil in an attempt to slow deforestation. implemented a 5% tax BBC News reported: reported The Chinese government is introducing a 5% tax on disposable wooden chopsticks in a bid to preserve its forests. It produces about 45 billion pairs of chopsticks a year, consuming millions of trees and bamboo plants. The move came as China said it would raise some consumption taxes next month in a bid to help the environment and narrow the gap between rich and poor. Although this tax may have slowed deforestation, it certainly hasn't stopped it. In 2013, Bo Guangxin, the head of the China Jilin Forest Industry Group, estimated that China was using 20 million trees a year to produce nearly 80 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks. estimated NPR. "Transcript: Greta Thunberg's Speech At The U.N. Climate Action Summit." 23 September 2019. BBC. "China Introduces Chopsticks Tax." 22 March 2006. Lee, Don. "Chinas Chopstick Tax Seems Dim to Some." Los Angeles Times. 24 March 2006. Nuwer, Rachel. "Disposable Chopsticks Strip Asian Forests." The New York Times. 24 October 2011.

False

Swedish environmental activist Greta Thunberg has been the subject of a number of baseless rumors ever since the then-15-year-old stepped into the spotlight in 2018. We've previously examined false accusations that Thunberg was the "highest paid activist," that she was actually an actress, and that she was once filmed firing a machine gun. In May 2020, after Thunberg was invited to participate in a CNN Town Hall, an old rumor concerning a quote ostensibly uttered by the activist about how China should stop using chopsticks was recirculated on social media:One of the earliest postings of this rumor, which was shared by the unverified Twitter account @Geoloong on Jan. 14, included a GIF of Thunberg speaking at the Climate Action Summit in 2019, but Thunberg made no mention of "chopsticks" during this speech. We searched other articles, interviews, and speeches delivered by Thunberg around this time and found no record of her asking China to ban chopsticks. Furthermore, the anecdote described in this post is simply ludicrous. Although it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for Thunberg, a teenager who became Time magazine's youngest Person of the Year for her work addressing climate change, to note the adverse environmental impact of disposable chopsticks, it would be quite extraordinary for the government of the most populous country in the world to issue a juvenile response telling someone not to "wipe their butt" because toilet paper is made from trees.If China did issue such a statement, it would have surely been international news. Yet, just as we were unable to find a source for Thunberg's alleged comment, we were unable to find a credible source for China's alleged insult. In fact, the text on the above-displayed meme is a near-verbatim copy of the text published to the humor website Joe.ks.com.Although Thunberg did not urge China to ban the use of chopsticks, China truly uses millions of trees every year to produce billions of pairs of disposable chopsticks. When concerns about the adverse impact disposable chopsticks had on the environment were raised in 2006, the Chinese government implemented a 5% tax on the utensil in an attempt to slow deforestation. BBC News reported:Although this tax may have slowed deforestation, it certainly hasn't stopped it. In 2013, Bo Guangxin, the head of the China Jilin Forest Industry Group, estimated that China was using 20 million trees a year to produce nearly 80 billion pairs of disposable chopsticks.

FMD_train_232

Is Pic of Antelope With Spiderweb Between Its Horns Real?

03/30/2021

In March 2021, a photograph supposedly showing an antelope with a large spiderweb between its horns started to circulate on social media: These are genuine photographs of a gemsbok, a large antelope that lives in South Africa, with spiderwebs between its horns. photographs These photographs were taken by Dr. Jess Isden, a research associate with the animal conservation group WildCRU, during a safari at the Central Kalahari Game Reserve in Botswana. Isden originally shared these pictures to "The Spider Club of Southern Africa" Facebook page in an attempt to find more information about what sort of spider would make this web. While we still don't know the type of spider some users suggested it could be a golden orb spider Isden's post did provide some additional information about these photographs. Isden wrote: At first I thought the gemsbok must have walked through the web, but on closer inspection it was clear that it was much more intricate than that, and there were living spiders in the webs too. Seen on several animals. They could have easily wiped the webs off their face and horns, yet seem to tolerate it. We also saw the same animal multiple times over 4 days with the web still intact! Seen in the Central Kalahari Game Reserve, Botswana. This is not the first time a spider has chosen an animal's horns or antlers for placement of a web. Photographer Frank Solomon has also captured pictures showing spiderwebs between an animals antlers. You can see those images here. Below is a a photograph from wildlife photographer Hector Astorga: here Correction [30 March 2021]: Previous version of this article mistakenly said "antlers" instead of horns.

True

These are genuine photographs of a gemsbok, a large antelope that lives in South Africa, with spiderwebs between its horns.This is not the first time a spider has chosen an animal's horns or antlers for placement of a web. Photographer Frank Solomon has also captured pictures showing spiderwebs between an animals antlers. You can see those images here. Below is a a photograph from wildlife photographer Hector Astorga:

FMD_train_196

Origins of the 7Up Soft Drink Name

08/06/2004

Claim: The soft drink 7Up was named for the number of its ingredients. LEGEND Origins: The power of the enigma lies in its ability to enthrall, to capture the imagination. As a society, we delight in the little mysteries that don't immediately yield up their answers, which is why products whose names we can't fathom hold their appeal. One such product is 7Up. Though the soft drink itself is not the least bit mysterious, its name is. To this day, no one can swear to know the reason for that particular choice of moniker. Here is what is known: 7Up was invented in October 1929 by Charles Leiper Grigg, a man who ten years earlier had formulated a carbonated orange-flavored drink ("Whistle") while working for an employer with whom he later had a falling out. Said contretemps led to his packing up and leaving, and in 1920 the employerless Grigg formed his own soft drink company, the Howdy Corporation to produce "Howdy," yet another orange-flavored soda. Howdy was fairly successful as soft drinks go, but it was unable to seriously challenge Orange Crush, the leader in the field, and over time Howdy lost market shareto its predominant rival. Rather than see his company die by inches, C.L. Grigg cast about for another sort of soda to broaden his company's consumer base. Grigg discarded colas, root beers, and ginger ales in favor of a lemon-lime concoction. Although most every bottler was producing a lemon-lime drink in thosedays, none of those sodas had achieved national prominence, a state of affairs that left a golden opportunity forlornly sitting there waiting to be noticed. And Grigg noticed. In response, he invented the soda we now call 7Up. However, the uncola wasn't known as 7Up for the first few years of its existence. It was originally christened "Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda." In his formulation, Grigg had included lithia, a naturally-occurring substance found in minute quantities in bubbling waters fed by underground springs. (Lithia is better known as lithium, a drug used to even out mood swings.) Grigg had the notion that the chemical's presumed healthful aspects would be a selling point with the soda-buying public, hence the "Lithiated" in the name. As for "Bib-Label," it was Howdy Corporation's intent to use paper labels of the sort that could be dropped over the necks of otherwise unlabeled bottles. lithium Fortunately, the unwieldy name was soon morphed to "7Up Lithiated Lemon Soda," and in 1936 the soda was officially re-dubbed "7Up." That same year, the Howdy Corporation became the Seven-Up Company. As to why "7Up," C.L. Grigg never explained how he came up with the cryptic name. Several theories exist about its origin: 7Up was the product of seven ingredients. (Which, in a way, was at least true with regard to the classes of ingredients in that original formulation: sugar, carbonated water, essences of lemon and lime oils, citric acid, sodium citrate, and lithium citrate.) "Seven Up" has seven letters. (This explanation is rather far-fetched, as it posits that the drink was named after itself.) The beverage was originally sold in 7-ounce bottles. (Which it was. Then again, so was Orange Crush.) Its inventor boasted the drink would cure mankind's "seven hangovers." (Grigg did make this statement, but it was rather tongue-in-cheek.) Grigg saw cattle branded with a mark that resembled "7UP." Reasoning that if the brand was distinctive enough to help a rancher identify his cattle, the soft drink inventor concluded it would similarly work to help consumers remember his new lemon-lime beverage. (A former 7Up president and chairman did recount this anecdote in a 1942 speech, saying Grigg had read about the history of cow brands in a Sunday newspaper article, including one brand that consisted of a letter "u" on top and to the right of a number "7.") Grigg won a great deal of money in a craps game thanks to all the sevens that were rolled that night. (Though oft repeated, little supports this tale. What money Grigg needed when he started the Howdy Corporation he obtained by bringing in moneyed partners.) Grigg won a fortune at poker, thanks to the seventh "up" card dealt him. (The same reasons for disbelieving the craps explanation apply to the poker postulation.) It's quite possible the drink's name was meant to be a enigma, given that its creator never publicly explained it. It could even have been a nonsense term meant to leave people wondering after its backstory as a way of generating interest in the beverage. (We humans do love mysteries, after all.) Questions of how it came by its name aside, 7Up has attracted another origin rumor. Many trivia lists circulated on the Internet make the following claim: The 'spot' on 7UP comes from its inventor who had red eyes. He was albino. Charles Leiper Grigg wasn't an albino. In photographs (albeit black and white ones), albino he appears normally pigmented, and we've yet to encounter a biography of him that makes any mention of his displaying traits of albinism. (By the way, though it is possible for an albino to have reddish or violet eyes, most people with that condition have blue eyes, and some have hazel or brown eyes.) As to where the red dot in the beverage's logo came from, so far the earliest examples we've found of that design have come from the 1970s. Prior to that, the company's trademark for the longest time was a black-outlined white "7Up" on a red background that bore some white bubbles the red dot was nowhere to be seen. In very early ads, the "7up" had wings. Barbara "7Upswept" Mikkelson Last updated: 27 April 2014 The Legend of Dr. Pepper/7Up

True

However, the uncola wasn't known as 7Up for the first few years of its existence. It was originally christened "Bib-Label Lithiated Lemon-Lime Soda." In his formulation, Grigg had included lithia, a naturally-occurring substance found in minute quantities in bubbling waters fed by underground springs. (Lithia is better known as lithium, a drug used to even out mood swings.) Grigg had the notion that the chemical's presumed healthful aspects would be a selling point with the soda-buying public, hence the "Lithiated" in the name. As for "Bib-Label," it was Howdy Corporation's intent to use paper labels of the sort that could be dropped over the necks of otherwise unlabeled bottles. albino. In photographs (albeit black and white ones),

FMD_train_305

Obama Eliminates Combat Pay

02/08/2012

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

False

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

FMD_train_899

Was Fauci portrayed as the antagonist in 'Dallas Buyers Club'?

12/17/2021

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_487

Is FEMA Hiring 'Field Inspectors' and Paying Them Thousands Per Week?

08/30/2017

On 25 August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas, bringing extended heavy rainfall, flooding, and, of course, rumors and scams in its wake. Hurricane Harvey landfall flooding One such rumor involved high-paying Federal Emergency Management Agency jobs ("FEMA Field Inspectors") purportedly created by the storm. Readers forwarded various versions of the rumor they spotted on social media, most mentioning a "Mr. Adrian Davis" recruiting a thousand workers for positions paying between $2,000 and $5,000 per week: FEMA is looking to hire help. $2000 per week plus expenses. 90 days or longer they need over 1000 people. Cannot have any felonies. 888 776 1296. Mr. Adrian Davis.True of False?I have not been able to verify this-the phone number goes from a fast busy to a regular busy.Thank you There is a post going around Facebook seeking FEMA Field Inspectors. $4-5 K per week. No experience necessary. The ad contains an error: "Will be reimburse travel"The phone number to call is 214-[redacted].All sounds too good to be true and I don't see anything similar on the FEMA website or Facebook page. Can you please check out a rumor via Facebook that FEMA is paying people up to 5,000 dollars per week to work in Houston as field inspectors. They have to call 214.[redacted] to register.Why wouldn't the FEMA hire people directly? Sounds like a HUGE scam to me!! The rumor spread quickly, thanks to its plausible premise of FEMA being understaffed in August 2017, the high (but not impossibly so) pay described, and the ease with which one could plausibly qualify. Although some iterations listed an area code of (888) and a contact name of "Adrian Davis," others provided a 214 (Dallas-area) number which appears to have no affiliation with FEMA. A poster provided an application deadline of 31 August 2017: deadline On 30 August 2017, the agency addressed the "FEMA Field Inspectors" rumor on its official Facebook page: FEMA linked to a Hurricane Harvey page, with an expandable section titled "Rumor Control." That section revealed that the rumor was in fact true: Rumor Control There is a lot of misinformation circulating online and because rumors spread fast please tell a friend, share this page, and help us provide accurate information. Check here often for an on-going list of rumors and their true or false status. Hiring Rumor: There are reports of a flyer titled FEMA Field Inspectors needed ASAP and states Earn $4-5K per week call (214) 284-6594 for instructions on how to apply between the hours of 9:00am 11:00am up to August 31, 2017. This report is (August 29). FEMA is hiring field inspectors under a pre-existing contract to assist with surge capacity of field inspections. Read more about becoming a home inspector. becoming a home inspector Rumor: There are reports stating FEMA is looking to employ 1,000 people offering to pay $2,000/week for 90 days and the phone number to call is 888-776-1296. This report is . (August 29) Learn more about official FEMA job opportunities to help with the response and review a list of trusted non-profit organizations who are active in disaster response. official FEMA job opportunities to help with the response trusted non-profit organizations who are active in disaster response According to FEMA, these jobs are available under a pre-existing contract "to assist with surge capacity," and the 214 number circulating is legitimate, as is the 31 August 2017 deadline. However, FEMA says the 888 number is not legitimate and the "$2,000 a week for 90 days" claim is inaccurate. We contacted the agency for further confirmation, but we have not yet received a response. FEMA. "Hurricane Harvey: Rumor Control." Accessed 30 August 2017.

True

On 25 August 2017, Hurricane Harvey made landfall in Texas, bringing extended heavy rainfall, flooding, and, of course, rumors and scams in its wake.The rumor spread quickly, thanks to its plausible premise of FEMA being understaffed in August 2017, the high (but not impossibly so) pay described, and the ease with which one could plausibly qualify. Although some iterations listed an area code of (888) and a contact name of "Adrian Davis," others provided a 214 (Dallas-area) number which appears to have no affiliation with FEMA. A poster provided an application deadline of 31 August 2017:FEMA linked to a Hurricane Harvey page, with an expandable section titled "Rumor Control." That section revealed that the rumor was in fact true:FEMA is hiring field inspectors under a pre-existing contract to assist with surge capacity of field inspections. Read more about becoming a home inspector.Learn more about official FEMA job opportunities to help with the response and review a list of trusted non-profit organizations who are active in disaster response.

FMD_train_201

Did Advice Columnist Ann Landers Say This About Aging?

10/29/2019

In October 2019 it came to our attention that an aging platitude about aging, already credited to multiple sources, found a new voice: The meme appeared on Get Old, a lifestyle blog published by a pharmaceutical company. The same quote has been attributed to Landers on several sites, including Psychology Today. Psychology Today However, the quote does not surface in searches at AnnLanders.com, an advice column launched in 2019 by Landers daughter, Margo Howard. The site is also advertised as an archive of Landers columns. Thats not the only reason to doubt the credit. A similar quote has been attributed to Bob Hope, Anonymous, a wise old man, and Winston Churchill. Snopes investigated that last one in December 2018: Bob Hope a wise old man December 2018 Not so long ago, this particular quote about aging existed on the Internet primarily as a wise saying attributed to Anonymous or Unknown. For example, motivational speaker Bill Benjamin included it as such on his list of Favorite Quotes & Thoughts as far back as 2008. This quote appears in myriad other lists of anonymous sayings as well and was memed into a Churchill quote only fairly recently. 2008 We rate the newer variation of this claim as "Misattributed" because, although Landers could have given some version of this advice during the 47 years she was publishing columns, there is no available evidence to prove that the exact quote originated with her. Unfortunately, Landers (Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer) died in 2002 at the age of 83, so we cannot ask her to confirm directly. died Here is advice on aging Landers did recommend for everyone over 60. Again, however, not her words. The list was written by one of her readers. Here is advice Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know. Let us know.

False

The meme appeared on Get Old, a lifestyle blog published by a pharmaceutical company. The same quote has been attributed to Landers on several sites, including Psychology Today.A similar quote has been attributed to Bob Hope, Anonymous, a wise old man, and Winston Churchill. Snopes investigated that last one in December 2018:Not so long ago, this particular quote about aging existed on the Internet primarily as a wise saying attributed to Anonymous or Unknown. For example, motivational speaker Bill Benjamin included it as such on his list of Favorite Quotes & Thoughts as far back as 2008. This quote appears in myriad other lists of anonymous sayings as well and was memed into a Churchill quote only fairly recently.Unfortunately, Landers (Esther Pauline "Eppie" Lederer) died in 2002 at the age of 83, so we cannot ask her to confirm directly.Here is advice on aging Landers did recommend for everyone over 60. Again, however, not her words. The list was written by one of her readers.Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know.

FMD_train_1533

Are Eyeball Tattoos a Real Thing?

06/03/2016

Humans have been modifying their bodies as long as there have been tools available to do so. Tattoos, piercings, corseting, and other practices generally characterized as "transgressive" actually come with centuries of historical weight, and even newer types of body modification generally have precedents. Eyeball tattooing is no exception to this, despite popping up mostly in news stories after 2015, when an inmate in Alaska appeared in court with one of his sclera evidently tattooed: Jason Barnum, also known as "Eyeball," was sentenced to 22 years in prison for shooting a police officer. His face and eye tattoos came up during the sentencing hearings as well; the prosecution said that his tattoos showed a specific behavior pattern, and Barnum argued that poor decisions earlier in life had left him unable to find work. sentenced At any rate, eye tattoos are real -- and permanent. The BBC weighed in on the practice of eyeball tattooing in 2015, concluding that the tattoos are a strikingly visible way to proclaim one's individuality to the world: Looking a little out-of-this world is something that appealed to Kylie Garth, a body piercer who works in Luna Cobra's Sydney studio. Before deciding to change the colour of her eyeballs, Garth had experimented with a number of body modifications including face tattoos, piercings, elf-like pointed ears and a bifurcated tongue. "It was mentally intense," she says of the several injections needed to colour her eyeballs a delicate blue-green, a colour she refers to as sea foam. "It feels like somebody is poking at your eye, then it feels like strange pressure and then it feels you have a bit of sand in your eye, but there's no pain." In 2007, a handful of stories ran on the practice of eyeball tattooing, mostly focusing on a tattoo artist named Luna Cobra who tattooed Garth's sclera and who claims to have invented the modern practice: practice First and foremost, I, Luna Cobra, am the inventor of eyeball, or sclera, tattooing (tattooing the white of the eye in a solid or mix of colours). I first attempted the procedure on sighted human eyeballs in 2007 on three well-informed and consenting parties. Since then, I have fine-tuned both the technique and materials to increase the safety and minimize the risks of tattooing the eyeball. There are still risks involved, of course, but in the 8 years I have been performing this procedure, all my clients are all still ok. Secondly, I personally have not trained anyone else to do this procedure. I have appeared on various tv/news segments though, and have inspired many copycats worldwide. This is important to know because without the proper education, training, experience and guidance, these practitioners have caused vision impairments like blurred vision, spots or floaters, and even blindness. YES PEOPLE ARE NOW BLIND FROM EYEBALL TATTOOING. The practice of tattooing the sclera or the cornea (mostly the cornea, over the iris of the eye) stretches back to at least the first century A.D. and has been documented as a cosmetic enhancement (e.g., a way to alleviate unsightly scars on the iris) since then: documented Permanent colouring of unsightly corneal scars has been known for almost 2000 years. During the final decade of the 19th and the first decades of the 20th century it was a commonly applied technique. Owing to the tremendous progress in microsurgical reconstructive procedures, corneal tattooing today will only apply for a minor and carefully selected group of patients. However, the procedure of coloring the whites of the eyes for elective cosmetic purposes has gained ground since Luna Cobra apparently developed it. That procedure is slightly less invasive, consisting of sandwiching pigments between the sclera and the conjunctiva of the eye, rather than depositing bits of ink just beneath the upper layer, as with a more traditional tattoo: tattoo Using the injection method of eyeball tattooing, where a larger area of ink is injected via a single hole, complex designs are not possible, and although fades from one color to another are possible to some extent, they can be difficult to control and master. The difficulty in controlling the spread of the ink makes this method inadvisable for the cornea (ie. over the iris and pupil) because of the danger of obscuring vision if the ink spreads over the pupil. Because only a few injections are required to completely cover the white of an eye with ink, many of the risks in the traditional method such as significant ink loss and ulceration are largely mitigated (although they are not eliminated). However, the injections can be difficult to control, and over-injection or injections that are too deep or too shallow carry significant risk the appropriate zone is less than a millimetre thick, with serious consequences for missing it. The medical community uses almost exclusively the traditional tattoo method although even after 150 years they have not come up with an agreed upon technique, which is very telling whereas the body modification community uses almost exclusively the injection method. To date, attempts to tattoo the white of the eye using traditional needle methods have been extremely unsatistfactory, almost completely falling out. The general consensus is that injection is the only acceptable method of scleral tattooing. The end result of this method permanently turns the whites of the eyes another color to create an otherworldly, striking look. Gifford S.R., Steinberg A. "Gold and silver impregnation of cornea for cosmetic purposes." American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1927. Gold and silver impregnation of cornea for cosmetic purposes Larratt, Shannon. "The Eyeball Tattoo FAQ." Body Modification Ezine. 21 November 2012. The Eyeball Tattoo FAQ Pitz, S., et al. "Corneal Tattooing: An Alternative Treatment for Disfiguring Corneal Scars." British Journal of Opthamology. April 2002. Corneal Tattooing: An Alternative Treatment for Disfiguring Corneal Scars.

True

Jason Barnum, also known as "Eyeball," was sentenced to 22 years in prison for shooting a police officer. His face and eye tattoos came up during the sentencing hearings as well; the prosecution said that his tattoos showed a specific behavior pattern, and Barnum argued that poor decisions earlier in life had left him unable to find work.In 2007, a handful of stories ran on the practice of eyeball tattooing, mostly focusing on a tattoo artist named Luna Cobra who tattooed Garth's sclera and who claims to have invented the modern practice:The practice of tattooing the sclera or the cornea (mostly the cornea, over the iris of the eye) stretches back to at least the first century A.D. and has been documented as a cosmetic enhancement (e.g., a way to alleviate unsightly scars on the iris) since then:However, the procedure of coloring the whites of the eyes for elective cosmetic purposes has gained ground since Luna Cobra apparently developed it. That procedure is slightly less invasive, consisting of sandwiching pigments between the sclera and the conjunctiva of the eye, rather than depositing bits of ink just beneath the upper layer, as with a more traditional tattoo:Gifford S.R., Steinberg A. "Gold and silver impregnation of cornea for cosmetic purposes." American Journal of Ophthalmology. 1927.Larratt, Shannon. "The Eyeball Tattoo FAQ." Body Modification Ezine. 21 November 2012.Pitz, S., et al. "Corneal Tattooing: An Alternative Treatment for Disfiguring Corneal Scars." British Journal of Opthamology. April 2002.

FMD_train_1828

I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago.

10/20/2014

Next to jobs and the economy, public employee pensions have been among the biggest issues in many 2014 political campaigns. Ernest Almonte, an independent running for general treasurer, was asked during an interview that aired Oct. 5, 2014 on the second half of WLNE's On the Record whether the 2011 overhaul of Rhode Islands state pension system went far enough. First of all, Almonte said, I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago, warning elected officials that if you didn't take care of this problem, it would take draconian measures to fix it. As a matter of fact, he said, it got to the point of saying that, 'If you're not going to fix this, you should start, (instead of) sending your children and grandchildren birthday cards and Christmas cards, you should just send them invoices and just tell them the truth: You're passing on your debt to them,' So something had to be done. We wondered whether Almonte, who served as Rhode Island's Auditor General from 1994 to 2010, was prescient enough to be warning about problems with Rhode Islands public pension systems 17 years ago, and what kinds of reforms he was saying were needed. Almontes campaign sent us several documents from the auditor general's office. Only a few go back to late 1990s and the relevant ones dealt with pension payment problems in individual communities, not state employees. One was a 1998 letter to Coventry's treasurer saying that some of the town's pension plans have insufficient assets to meet projected benefits. That was 16 years ago. Another was a 1998 copy of a report by the Johnston Financial Review Commission, which Almonte chaired, warning that the town owed $3.2 million in required pension contributions for its employees. For example, Johnston hadn't paid into the firemen's pension fund for more than three years, putting it more than $1.3 million behind in its payments. We note that Almonte's comments in both of these reports are in dry auditor language. Some readers might not take that as the type of scary warning that Almonte says he made. But we also found a May 8, 1988 front-page Providence Journal story reporting how Almonte explained to more than 200 Johnston residents that their town was in deep financial trouble. To drive home the severity of the situation, the story said, Almonte gave examples that sometimes made the audience wince: A bottom-of-the-barrel credit rating. A time between April 1996 and March 1997 when the town's bank account was overdrawn for 146 days. Falling behind $3.19 million in required pension contributions for workers. And that's not all, Almonte said. Still to be reckoned with is an unfunded pension liability that hasn't been quantified, and could add up to untold millions, the story reported. Almonte's campaign also referred us toa March 1999 report, available on the Auditor General's website, for the 1997 fiscal year. It notes that five school districts, five municipalities and three police and fire units were delinquent to the tune of about $1.7 million in their pension payments. The state withheld school aid and traffic fine payments to six municipalities until they paid up. That was 15 years ago. If Almonte wasn't warning about a looming crisis in the state pension system in those days, that's because there wasn't one. His2000 audit of the state Employees' Retirement System, covering the fiscal year that ended in 1999, reported that the funded ratios -- the amount of money each plan had compared to the amount of money it was expected to need to cover its pension costs -- had been growing steadily for years. The ratio for state employees, for example, went from 73 percent in 1993 to 81 percent in 1998. In addition, all the plans had been getting the recommended amount of funding since at least 1996 and, in many cases, even longer. That would change. By 2006, the funded ratio for that plan had dropped to 55 percent. By 2009, it had only gone up to59 percentand the debate about pension costs was poised to explode. We found no documentation from that era suggesting Almonte was advocating thetype ofsweeping changes to the separate pension plans for state employees and teachers that were pushed by General Treasurer Gina Raimondo and approved by the General Assembly and Governor Lincoln Chafee. In an interview, Almonte argued that he was talking about the state's pension problem at the time because late payments he was referring to were payments by cities and towns to the state-run Municipal Employees' Retirement System, also known as MERS, which is under the jurisdiction of the state treasurer. Reform is not just what you to do an employee or an employee's benefits, he said. I was advocating a reform of management to get the communities to make their payments on time, especially when the money being withheld by workers to help pay for pension benefits is being retained by the city or town. When payments are made late, you miss out on earnings, and that's the start of the problem because the problem compounds itself. Our ruling Ernest Almonte said, I was speaking out on pension reform almost 17 years ago. The comment was in the context of a question on the state's pension system. Its clear from documentation Almonte provided and information we found that Almonte was warning about problems years ago. But the documentation he could provide only dealt with problems in municipal plans, although some of those were in the MERS system run by the state. Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

True

Almonte's campaign also referred us toa March 1999 report, available on the Auditor General's website, for the 1997 fiscal year. It notes that five school districts, five municipalities and three police and fire units were delinquent to the tune of about $1.7 million in their pension payments.His2000 audit of the state Employees' Retirement System, covering the fiscal year that ended in 1999, reported that the funded ratios -- the amount of money each plan had compared to the amount of money it was expected to need to cover its pension costs -- had been growing steadily for years.That would change. By 2006, the funded ratio for that plan had dropped to 55 percent. By 2009, it had only gone up to59 percentand the debate about pension costs was poised to explode.Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True.(If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

FMD_train_1471

Did Kamala Harris Prosecute Journalists Who Exposed Planned Parenthood?

09/21/2020

In 2014 and 2015, two individuals associated with an anti-abortion organization called the Center for Medical Progress (CMP), David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt, posed as fetal researchers for a fake company named Biomax to gain entry to National Abortion Federation conventions. The pair's goal was to gather evidence that Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers were selling tissue from aborted fetuses for medical research. Although it is unlawful to knowingly acquire, receive, or otherwise transfer any human fetal tissue for valuable consideration, it is legal for patients to donate extracted material for medical research and for providers to receive reasonable payments associated with the transportation, implantation, processing, preservation, quality control, or storage of human fetal tissue as part of the donation process. The CMP subsequently posted videos online, which they claimed documented Planned Parenthood officials offering to illegally sell fetal tissue for profit, while Planned Parenthood maintained that the videos were deceptively edited and captured only discussions related to legal reimbursements for tissue donation procedures. A text meme circulated during the 2020 presidential campaign claimed that California Attorney General Kamala Harris (who by 2020 was a U.S. senator and a Democratic vice presidential candidate) had unfairly prosecuted the CMP "journalists" while taking no action against Planned Parenthood for "selling aborted baby parts." That meme was both inaccurate and misleading. It is true that no charges were brought against Planned Parenthood in California for the sound reason that Planned Parenthood was investigated by multiple states, but none of them found sufficient evidence to support a prosecution over claims that the organization had unlawfully sold (or offered to sell) human fetal tissue. As NPR reported, by the end of 2015, 12 different states had opened investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood was "selling body parts," and none of them turned up evidence of wrongdoing by that organization. Another eight states, including California, decided not to pursue similar investigations. On the other hand, after Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick asked the district attorney in Harris County to open a criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood in 2015, a grand jury there took no action against Planned Parenthood but did find sufficient evidence to indict Daleiden and Merritt on felony charges (which were later dropped) of tampering with government records over their use of fake identification. In late 2019, a federal jury in San Francisco ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in a civil lawsuit filed by that organization, rejecting arguments that Daleiden and Merritt were simply acting as investigative journalists, and ordering Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress, and others to pay Planned Parenthood $2.3 million in damages for violating federal and state laws by trespassing on private property and secretly recording video of others without their consent. In March 2017, Daleiden and Merritt were charged in California with 15 counts of violating state invasion of privacy laws that prohibit the recording of conversations without consent. A Superior Court judge dismissed some of those criminal charges, but another count was subsequently added in July, and several criminal counts remain current as of September 2020. Although then-Attorney General Harris was involved with the initial investigation of Daleiden and Merritt, she had left that office to take her seat in the U.S. Senate two months before charges were first brought against the pair by her successor, Xavier Becerra.

False

The CMP subsequently posted videos online which they claimed documented Planned Parenthood officials offering to illegally sell fetal tissue for profit, while Planned Parenthood maintained the videos were deceptively edited and captured only discussion related to legal reimbursements for tissue donation procedures.It is true that no charges were brought against Planned Parenthood in California for the sound reason that Planned Parenthood was investigated by multiple states but none of them found sufficient evidence to support a prosecution over claims that the organization had unlawfully sold (or offered to sell) human fetal tissue. As NPR reported, by the end of 2015, 12 different states had opened investigations into allegations that Planned Parenthood was "selling body parts," and none of them turned up evidence of wrongdoing by that organization. (Another eight states, including California, decided not to pursue similar investigations.)On the other hand, after Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick asked the district attorney in Harris County to open a criminal investigation into Planned Parenthood in 2015, a grand jury there took no action against Planned Parenthood, but did find sufficient evidence to indict Daleiden and Merritt on felony charges (which were later dropped) of tampering with government records over their use of fake identification.In late 2019, a federal jury in San Francisco ruled in favor of Planned Parenthood in a civil lawsuit filed by that organization, rejecting arguments that Daleiden and Merritt were simply acting as investigative journalists, and ordering Daleiden, the Center for Medical Progress, and others, to pay Planned Parenthood $2.3 million in damages for violating federal and state laws by trespassing on private property and secretly recording video of others without their consent.In March 2017, Daleiden and Merritt were charged in California with 15 counts of violating state invasion of privacy laws that prohibit the recording of conversations without consent. A Superior Court judge dismissed some of those criminal charges, but another count was subsequently added in July, and several criminal counts remain current as of September 2020.

FMD_train_77

Providence has more of its pension fund invested in hedge funds and is less transparent about it than the state.

11/03/2013

Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo has come under fire because, on her recommendation, the State Investment Commission, in 2012, put more pension money in hedge funds. Critics say the funds, which are designed to retain value or increase in value for large investors when the overall market is performing poorly, are risky and charge exorbitant rates. On Oct. 21, aftera reportcommissioned by the largest state employees union accused Raimondo of selling out Rhode Island's public workers and retirees for an opportunity to enrich herself and her hedge fund backers, Raimondo sent out a fundraising letter trying to put the investment strategy in perspective. One portion focused on Providence's pension fund, overseen by Mayor Angel Taveras, a declared candidate for governor who is expected to face Raimondo in a Democratic primary. Providence has more of its pension fund invested in hedge funds and is less transparent and yet isnt included in the [union-financed] report because this is about attacking one individual and a comprehensive reform, she said. We wondered whether her points about hedge funds and transparency were accurate. Looking at how much each fund is investing in hedge funds, themost recent monthly numbersshow that, as of Sept. 30, Raimondo is correct on a percentage basis. The report, available on the treasurer's website, says 14.2 percent of Rhode Islands $7.8 billion retirement account is invested in hedge funds. In Providence, hedge funds on Sept. 30 made up 16.6 percent of the $241 million in Providence's retirement account,according to a city report. That's nearly two and a half percentage points higher than the states ratio. However, when Providence made part of its annual required pension contribution nine days later, that percentage dropped to about 14.3 percent, virtually identical to the state ratio. (The value of the hedge funds hadnt declined, only their percentage of the overall fund. When the city made the rest of its annual contribution, the ratio dropped to 13.2 percent, according to city spokesman David Ortiz, who noted that Taveras is trying to move away from hedge funds while Raimondo has embraced them.) So whether Raimondo is correct or not depends on when you look. Raimondo's office said her fundraising letter was based on aMay 8, 2013, blog postat WPRI.com, which reported that Providence had just under 20 percent of its pension money invested in hedge funds at a time when the state's ratio was 14.6 percent. The media report from May 2013 was the only information that we could publicly find regarding Providences investment allocation to hedge funds, said Collin Berglund, spokesman for Friends of Gina Raimondo. That has changed. After Raimondo made her comment and PolitiFact called Providence to check it on Oct. 23, the city posted more of its retirement fund data online, including the Sept. 30 numbers and an Oct. 22 tally that included the $33 million infusion of cash from the city that made hedge funds an even smaller slice of the retirement pie. Which brings us to the issue of transparency. Raimondo's office has bragged about its openness because detailed information about the investments is posted on the general treasurer's website. Raimondo has also, for the first time, included information on the hidden fees that some funds charge the state and most states don't report. City spokesman Ortiz responded in an Oct. 24 email: Reports prepared by our pension investment advisers have always been provided to the media without any redaction, and are now publicly available on the citys open data portal:https://data.providenceri.gov/. He said that Raimondo has denied public records requests and redacted key data regarding fees and performance for some investments. He did not respond when we pressed him for specifics. But earlier this year, Raimondos office denied a request by The Providence Journal to see certain details that each hedge fund gives to the state, saying it is bound by contractual confidentiality agreements.An Aug. 4, 2013 Journal storyreported that much of that information was redacted from documents Raimondos office provided to the newspaper. When we asked Raimondo's office about Ortiz's allegations about disclosure, spokeswoman Joy Fox said in the few instances where information has been withheld, it had to be kept secret to avoid violating contracts. We found some hedge fund report information on the Providence website that seemed to offer more detail than what Raimondo offered, but it's not clear whether the report was available before PolitiFact began inquiring about Raimondo's claim about openness. Our ruling Rhode Island General Treasurer Gina Raimondo said Providence has more of its pension fund invested in hedge funds than the state does and is less transparent about it. Based on the Sept. 30 financial statements, the first part of Raimondo's statement would have been true. The city had 16.6 percent of its pension money in hedge funds, compared with the states 14.2 percent. That's no longer true because Providence subsequently made its annual pension payment, increasing the proportion of non-hedge fund investments. But that information was not public at the time Raimondo made her statement. On the issue of disclosure, the city has released pension information when asked, but theres much more pension information -- particularly historical information -- widely available to the public on the states website. Raimondos statement was accurate on Sept. 30, but recognizing that a key element had changed by the time she made it on Oct. 21, we rate itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

True

On Oct. 21, aftera reportcommissioned by the largest state employees union accused Raimondo of selling out Rhode Island's public workers and retirees for an opportunity to enrich herself and her hedge fund backers, Raimondo sent out a fundraising letter trying to put the investment strategy in perspective.Looking at how much each fund is investing in hedge funds, themost recent monthly numbersshow that, as of Sept. 30, Raimondo is correct on a percentage basis.In Providence, hedge funds on Sept. 30 made up 16.6 percent of the $241 million in Providence's retirement account,according to a city report. That's nearly two and a half percentage points higher than the states ratio.Raimondo's office said her fundraising letter was based on aMay 8, 2013, blog postat WPRI.com, which reported that Providence had just under 20 percent of its pension money invested in hedge funds at a time when the state's ratio was 14.6 percent.City spokesman Ortiz responded in an Oct. 24 email: Reports prepared by our pension investment advisers have always been provided to the media without any redaction, and are now publicly available on the citys open data portal:https://data.providenceri.gov/. He said that Raimondo has denied public records requests and redacted key data regarding fees and performance for some investments.He did not respond when we pressed him for specifics. But earlier this year, Raimondos office denied a request by The Providence Journal to see certain details that each hedge fund gives to the state, saying it is bound by contractual confidentiality agreements.An Aug. 4, 2013 Journal storyreported that much of that information was redacted from documents Raimondos office provided to the newspaper.Raimondos statement was accurate on Sept. 30, but recognizing that a key element had changed by the time she made it on Oct. 21, we rate itMostly True.(If you have a claim youd like PolitiFact Rhode Island to check, e-mail us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

FMD_train_682

Does Glaxo Own the 'Wuhan Lab'?

12/08/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In November 2020, as news broke that a vaccination for COVID-19 was being prepared for distribution, a rumor started circulating on social media that the pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline owned a laboratory in Wuhan, China—the Wuhan Institute of Virology—where conspiracy theorists falsely maintain the COVID-19 pandemic originated. This rumor, which resembles a game of six degrees of separation, attempts to trace a line from GlaxoSmithKline to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, to billionaire philanthropist and frequent right-wing boogeyman George Soros, and, in some iterations of this rumor, to Microsoft CEO Bill Gates. Here's one version of the rumor that was posted to Twitter: This tweet reads: "The Chinese biological laboratory in Wuhan is owned by Glaxo! Who, by chance, owns Pfizer! (the one who produces the vaccine!) Which, by chance, is managed by Black Rock finances. Who, by chance, manages the finances of the Open Foundation Company (SOROS FOUNDATION)!" This nonsensical game of connect the dots starts with a false assertion. The pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline does not own the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The Wuhan Institute of Virology, a research lab in China that has been the center of conspiracy theories since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, is operated by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and is funded, in large part, by the Chinese government. It is not owned by GlaxoSmithKline or any other private company. "Over the past 40 years, half of its income has come directly from central-government investment; the rest has been from competitive funding or technology transfer. CAS could not develop without the funding and support of the central government." It's also false to say that GlaxoSmithKline owns the pharmaceutical company Pfizer. While these two companies share some common interests—in 2018, they announced a joint venture that combined their consumer health businesses—they remain two distinct companies. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time: "Pfizer Inc. and GlaxoSmithKline PLC plan to combine their consumer health-care units and eventually spin off the joint venture, creating the world's largest seller of drugstore staples like Advil and Sensodyne toothpaste. The deal, announced Wednesday, will free up both companies to concentrate on prescription medicines, which tend to be more profitable if also higher risk. The joint venture represents an unexpected conclusion to a yearlong process by Pfizer to shed its consumer business, as it and other pharmaceutical companies focus on higher-margin prescription drugs. While Glaxo has shared that focus, the British drugmaker had remained committed to its consumer business, which its chief executive led before her promotion to the top job last year." This joint venture, however, did not involve one company buying the other. This rumor appears to have been created with the intent of stirring up confusion and skepticism over the COVID-19 vaccine by connecting pharmaceutical companies to a laboratory in Wuhan, China. GlaxoSmithKline, however, does not own the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Furthermore, claims that COVID-19 was "manufactured," or that it "escaped from" this Chinese lab, are nothing more than baseless conspiracy theories.

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. This rumor, which reads like a game of six-degrees of separation, attempts to trace a line from GlaxoSmithKline, to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to the pharmaceutical company Pfizer, to billionaire philanthropist and frequent right-wing boogeyman George Soros, and, in some iterations of this rumor, to Microsoft CEO Bill Gates.The Wuhan Institute of Virology a research lab in China that has been the center of conspiracy theories since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic is operated by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), and is funded, in large part, by the Chinese government. It is not owned by GlaxoSmithKline or any other private company.While these two companies share some common interests in 2018, they announced a joint venture that combined their consumer health businesses they remain two distinct companies. The Wall Street Journal reported at the time:

FMD_train_585

Do Falling Coconuts Kill More People Than Sharks Each Year?

05/30/2017

A popular trope used by those seeking to recast the shark as a misunderstood beast is to compare the risk sharks pose to humans to the purported risk posed by ripening coconuts. These sweet-tasting, nutrient-rich tree nuts the logic goes kill more people by falling out of trees than do sharks. This is an ostensibly simple question to investigate, as it requires knowing only two things: the annual death rate from unprovoked shark attacks and the annual death rate from falling coconuts. trope The annual death rate from sharks is pretty straightforward. The University of Florida runs a comprehensive database of shark attacks and fatalities: The International Shark Attack File. According to their research, there has been an average of six deaths annually over the past decade. research Problems emerge, however, when one tries to get a handle on how many people die each year as a direct result of injuries sustained by falling coconuts. The most commonly cited figure is that 150 people die each year from falling coconuts. No published research, however, has come up with any reliable estimate of this statistic whatsoever. Perhaps ironically, it appears that this number, as well, gained a sense of legitimacy from the University of Florida's International Shark Attack File, when a researcher there quoted the statistic in a press release for a local event: press release "Falling coconuts kill 150 people worldwide each year, 15 times the number of fatalities attributable to sharks," said George Burgess, Director of the University of Florida's International Shark Attack File and a noted shark researcher. "The reality is that, on the list of potential dangers encountered in aquatic recreation, sharks are right at the bottom of the list," said Burgess, who was one of three scientists participating Tuesday in a National Sea Grant College Program and NOAA Fisheries sponsored press briefing on sharks and the risks of shark attacks at the National Press Club. Investigating the specific claim of 150 coconut deaths each year, syndicated skeptic column The Straight Dope reached out to Burgess in 2002 to ask what his source was for that statistic, and discovered that, ultimately, it came from a British travel-insurance firm named Club Direct: reached out When I called Burgess, he told me he had gotten this statistic off the Internet specifically, from a widely reported press release from the British travel-insurance firm Club Direct, saying that "holidaymakers hit by falling coconuts will be guaranteed full cover under their travel insurance policy. The news follows reports from Queensland, Australia, that coconut trees are being uprooted by local councils fearful of being sued for damages by people injured by coconuts. 'Coconuts kill around 150 people worldwide each year, which makes them about ten times more dangerous than sharks,' says Brent Escott, managing director of Club Direct." According to the column, this press release also cited a 1984 study from the Journal of Trauma titled "Injuries Due to Falling Coconuts". That study the recipient of a 2001 Ig Nobel award for research that "cannot or should not be replicated" did not set out to calculate the global annual death rate from falling coconuts, however. Instead, using simple physics and four years of data collected from a remote Papua New Guinean hospital, it sought to demonstrate that the risk to human health from falling coconuts was a real one. From a physics standpoint, the paper argued: 1984 study recipient If a coconut weighing 2 kg falls 25 meters onto a person's head, the impact velocity is 80 km/hr. The decelerating force on the head will vary depending on whether a direct or glancing blow is received. The distance in which the coconut is decelerated is also an important factor. Thus an infant's head lying on the ground would receive a much greater force than that received by the head of a standing adult, that dropped as it was struck. For a stopping distance of 5cm and a direct blow, the force would be 1,000 kg. From a number of fatalities standpoint, however, the data did not actually directly identify a single fatality, though it did anecdotally report one death: Nine trauma admissions resulted from falling coconuts during the 4-year study period; during this time a total of 355 trauma cases were admitted. Thus 2.5% of trauma admissions were caused by falling coconuts. Injuries were to the back, shoulders, or head. [...] The health worker who referred Patient 1 for craniotomy informed us about another person in the same village who had died instantly a few years earlier when struck on the head by a falling coconut. While it might perhaps be possible to use this limited data to come up with a rough global estimate, no study has actually attempted to do this with systematic methodology. As such, there is no way to debunk the claim with 100 percent certainty. We can say, though, that newspaper reports of death from falling coconuts are far more sparse than reports of death from shark attacks. A 1973 article in the Honolulu Star-Bulletin detailed the tragic death of a 2-year old girl struck by a large number of falling coconuts on a beach, while claiming that as far as they could tell, this was the first newspaper report of such an incident in the area: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 28 July 1973. Credit: Newspapers.com The fact that this 1973 story has been cited decades after the fact (for example from a 1999 edition of the Honolulu Advertiser below), at least superficially reinforces the notion that death from falling coconut is a rare (but real) occurrence: The Honolulu Advertiser. 14 January 1997. Credit: Newspapers.com We rank this as unproven because accurate, published estimates on the global annual rate of death from falling coconut do not yet exist. Given the dearth of firsthand accounts of death from falling coconut, however, it seems unlikely that they pose more of a threat to human health than do sharks even if death from either event is extremely unlikely. Turnbull, Leslie. "How to Avoid Being Eaten by a Shark." This Week. 29 May 2017. Florida Museum. "International Shark Attack File" Accessed 30 May 2017. UniSci. "Falling Coconuts Kill More People Than Shark Attacks." Accessed 30 May 2017. Barss, Peter. "Injuries Due to Falling Coconuts." Journal of Trauma. November 1984. Improbable Research. "Portrait of an Ig Winner: Dr. Barss." Accessed 30 May 2017. Honolulu Star-Bulletin. "Baby Dies After Being Hit by Falling Cluster of Coconuts." 28 July 1973. The Honolulu Advertiser. "Coconut Danger in Park." 14 January 1997.

NEI

A popular trope used by those seeking to recast the shark as a misunderstood beast is to compare the risk sharks pose to humans to the purported risk posed by ripening coconuts. These sweet-tasting, nutrient-rich tree nuts the logic goes kill more people by falling out of trees than do sharks. This is an ostensibly simple question to investigate, as it requires knowing only two things: the annual death rate from unprovoked shark attacks and the annual death rate from falling coconuts.The annual death rate from sharks is pretty straightforward. The University of Florida runs a comprehensive database of shark attacks and fatalities: The International Shark Attack File. According to their research, there has been an average of six deaths annually over the past decade.Problems emerge, however, when one tries to get a handle on how many people die each year as a direct result of injuries sustained by falling coconuts. The most commonly cited figure is that 150 people die each year from falling coconuts. No published research, however, has come up with any reliable estimate of this statistic whatsoever. Perhaps ironically, it appears that this number, as well, gained a sense of legitimacy from the University of Florida's International Shark Attack File, when a researcher there quoted the statistic in a press release for a local event:Investigating the specific claim of 150 coconut deaths each year, syndicated skeptic column The Straight Dope reached out to Burgess in 2002 to ask what his source was for that statistic, and discovered that, ultimately, it came from a British travel-insurance firm named Club Direct:According to the column, this press release also cited a 1984 study from the Journal of Trauma titled "Injuries Due to Falling Coconuts". That study the recipient of a 2001 Ig Nobel award for research that "cannot or should not be replicated" did not set out to calculate the global annual death rate from falling coconuts, however. Instead, using simple physics and four years of data collected from a remote Papua New Guinean hospital, it sought to demonstrate that the risk to human health from falling coconuts was a real one. From a physics standpoint, the paper argued: Honolulu Star-Bulletin. 28 July 1973. Credit: Newspapers.com The Honolulu Advertiser. 14 January 1997. Credit: Newspapers.com

FMD_train_1620

Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization.

04/19/2017

On hisfirst visitto Wisconsin since taking office, PresidentDonald Trumpcame to Kenosha, a city once synonymous with manufacturing, to sign an executive order as part of his Buy American, Hire American agenda. Its aimed at boosting jobs in the United States. SpeakingApril 18, 2017 at Snap-on Inc., a tool manufacturer, Trump made a claim about China. He implied it had a hand in the loss of American jobs, saying: For too long, weve watched as our factories have been closed and our jobs have been sent to other faraway lands. Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization. And youve seen that, youve heard about it -- 70,000. The World Trade Organization -- another one of our disasters. Congress cleared the path for Chinas2001 entryinto the World Trade Organization, which deals with the rules of trade between nations and works for open trade.The entryspurred investment in China and produced a lot more movement of goods -- leading tobroad agreementthat the change cost America millions of jobs. But how many factories? And were there other factors? Previous claim Trumps claim is nearly the same one he made a month earlier at a rally in Kentucky, when he said: Since China joined thats another beauty the WTO in 2001, the U.S. has lost many more than 60,000 factories. PolitiFact Nationals rating wasMostly True. Heres what our colleagues found: The latest-available U.S. Census counts, for 2014, show the number of American factory establishments has dropped to below 300,000. The decrease since China joined the World Trade Organization was nearly 61,000, according to one Census tally, and more than 73,000 according to another. Some of that decline is due to Chinas becoming a bigger player in the world economy by joining the WTO, as our colleagues reported: Around the same time China joined the WTO, the United States gave China permanent normal trade relations status. Both of these actions removed significant barriers to trade and investment with China, basically putting them on an even playing field with the United States other trading partners. In the 16 years since, United States imports from China have quadrupled, in large part because production is so cheap there, making U.S.-based manufacturers less competitive. We found three significant economic studies from the past few years that all conclude increased free trade with China has had a negative impact on American manufacturing and jobs. At the same time, experts said the loss of factories was also brought on by other factors, including U.S. trade deficits with other parts of Asia and Europe; a slow recovery after the Great Recession; and increased manufacturing productivity in the United States. TheTrump-O-Meter, which tracks Trumps campaign promises, showsTrump has pledgedto reverse Chinas entry into the WTO. For its part,China maintainsthat its entry has led to global economic growth. Our rating Trump said: Weve lost 70,000 factories since China joined the World Trade Organization.The latest U.S. Census figures, for 2014, produced two counts: 73,000, which supports Trumps claim, and 61,000. And at least some of the losses can be attributed to increased trade with China. We rate the statement Mostly True. More Trump As he prepared to visit Wisconsin, Trumps record on the Truth-O-Meter -- on statements fact checkedsince hes been president-- shows roughly two-thirds of his statements have been rated near the bottom of the meter.

True

On hisfirst visitto Wisconsin since taking office, PresidentDonald Trumpcame to Kenosha, a city once synonymous with manufacturing, to sign an executive order as part of his Buy American, Hire American agenda. Its aimed at boosting jobs in the United States.SpeakingApril 18, 2017 at Snap-on Inc., a tool manufacturer, Trump made a claim about China. He implied it had a hand in the loss of American jobs, saying:Congress cleared the path for Chinas2001 entryinto the World Trade Organization, which deals with the rules of trade between nations and works for open trade.The entryspurred investment in China and produced a lot more movement of goods -- leading tobroad agreementthat the change cost America millions of jobs.PolitiFact Nationals rating wasMostly True.TheTrump-O-Meter, which tracks Trumps campaign promises, showsTrump has pledgedto reverse Chinas entry into the WTO.For its part,China maintainsthat its entry has led to global economic growth.As he prepared to visit Wisconsin, Trumps record on the Truth-O-Meter -- on statements fact checkedsince hes been president-- shows roughly two-thirds of his statements have been rated near the bottom of the meter.

FMD_train_279

This Facebook Post Offering Free Red Lobster Is a Scam

02/21/2022

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

False

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

FMD_train_976

Texas Maternal Mortality Rate Doubles After Reproductive Health Restrictions?

08/26/2016

On 20 August 2016, the UK newspaper The Guardian (among others) published an article about a September 2016 study suggesting that the maternal mortality rate in Texas had doubled in recent years (outstripping that of countries with overall poorer health outcomes): article The rate of Texas women who died from complications related to pregnancy doubled from 2010 to 2014, a new study has found, for an estimated maternal mortality rate that is unmatched in any other state and the rest of the developed world. The finding comes from a report, appearing in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology, that the maternal mortality rate in the United States increased between 2000 and 2014, even while the rest of the world succeeded in reducing its rate. Excluding California, where maternal mortality declined, and Texas, where it surged, the estimated number of maternal deaths per 100,000 births rose to 23.8 in 2014 from 18.8 in 2000 or about 27%. But the report singled out Texas for special concern, saying the doubling of mortality rates in a two-year period was hard to explain in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval. From 2000 to the end of 2010, Texass estimated maternal mortality rate hovered between 17.7 and 18.6 per 100,000 births. But after 2010, that rate had leaped to 33 deaths per 100,000, and in 2014 it was 35.8. Between 2010 and 2014, more than 600 women died for reasons related to their pregnancies. No other state saw a comparable increase. The article noted that reproductive health advocates placed the blame squarely on Texas' unique targeting of reproductive health centers and practices, citing budget cuts, atypically strict reproductive health laws and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, along with the vast size of the state (which made it difficult for many women to cross state lines to obtain gynecological care unavailable in Texas): strict defund In the wake of the report, reproductive health advocates are blaming the increase on Republican-led budget cuts that decimated the ranks of Texass reproductive healthcare clinics. In 2011, just as the spike began, the Texas state legislature cut $73.6m from the states family planning budget of $111.5m. The two-thirds cut forced more than 80 family planning clinics to shut down across the state. The remaining clinics managed to provide services such as low-cost or free birth control, cancer screenings and well-woman exams to only half as many women as before. Not everyone was convinced the ostensible cause and effect was so clear cut, as noted in a Townhall piece holding that conclusions about Texas' legislative efforts were politically motivated and contradicted by data: piece Apparently, the researchers did some adjusting of their own. According to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS), maternal mortality rates have been alarmingly increasing for years. That modest increase, lead researcher Marian MacDorman imagines, was a huge increase. In 2000, the MMR was 10.5 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (equating to 30 tragic deaths). By 2009, this rate had nearly tripled to 28.9 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births (resulting in 116 deaths). Thats a modest increase? In 2010, the MMR actually decreased to 24.6. Then, MacDorman et al claimed: Texas had a sudden increase in 2011-2012. If by sudden they mean over ten years of significant increases ... sure. They completely ignored the fact that from 2010 to 2011, the MMR rose from 24.6 to 30.7 (an increase of about 25 percent). From 2011 to 2012, the increase was only 3%, rising to a rate of 31.6 ... not doubling! That didn't stop Slate.com and a host of media outlets from declaring: After Texas Slashed Its Family Planning Budget, Maternal Deaths Almost Doubled. In 2013 it rose another 25 percent to 39.5 (claiming the lives of 153 women). Heres the clincher, though. Texas MMR dropped in 2014 in rate and total maternal deaths. Neither the peer-reviewed study nor any of the leftists in the news media mention this. Both items cited the study, titled "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate" published [PDF] in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. Both the study's title and its objective described a nationwide focus on maternal mortality: PDF To develop methods for trend analysis of vital statistics maternal mortality data, taking into account changes in pregnancy question formats over time and between states, and to provide an overview of U.S. maternal mortality trends from 2000 to 2014. Similarly, its conclusion singled out no state by name and made no specific reference to Texas: Despite the United Nations Millennium Development Goal for a 75% reduction in maternal mortality by 2015, the estimated maternal mortality rate for 48 states and Washington, DC, increased from 2000 to 2014; the international trend was in the opposite direction. There is a need to redouble efforts to prevent maternal deaths and improve maternity care for the 4 million U.S. women giving birth each year. Texas' second namecheck in the study was benign, noting that the overall rate of maternal mortality was so low that only California and Texas served as sources of by-state data due not to their specific outcomes, but to the size of their populations: It would be preferable to analyze data individually for each state; however, maternal death is a rare event, and the number of cases (396 U.S. deaths in 2000 and 856 in 2014) was not sufficient to support individual state analysis for all but the most populous states (California and Texas). But the "Results" portion of the introductory page noted that California's and Texas' statistics trended differently and provided a primary finding that colored media coverage of the findings: The estimated maternal mortality rate (per 100,000 live births) for 48 states and Washington, DC (excluding California and Texas, analyzed separately) increased by 26.6%, from 18.8 in 2000 to 23.8 in 2014. California showed a declining trend, whereas Texas had a sudden increase in 20112012. Analysis of the measurement change suggests that U.S. rates in the early 2000s were higher than previously reported. Much of the research hinged on pinpointing and adjusting for what was described as "the pregnancy question" (which was "added to the 2003 revision of the U.S. standard death certificate"), defined by the World Health Organization as death certificate language recording "The death of a woman while pregnant or within 42 days of termination of pregnancy, irrespective of the duration and the site of the pregnancy, from any cause related to or aggravated by the pregnancy or its management, but not from accidental or incidental causes." The WHO also provided for late maternal deaths via a separate but similar checkbox: "The death of a woman from direct or indirect obstetric causes more than 42 days but less than 1 year after termination of pregnancy." Although the phrasing "termination of pregnancy" typically is understood to mean "an abortion" in layman's speech, the researchers and WHO used it to mean the end of a pregnancy via live birth, stillbirth, miscarriage, or abortion. Researchers noted that state-by-state adoption of the pregnancy question vis a vis death records led to findings that required some adjustment to reach conclusions. While some states immediately adopted the guideline in 2003, others waited years. By January 2014, 44 states and the District of Columbia included the question on their death certificates; that incongruous state-by-state data pool led to efforts on the researchers' parts to calibrate the data and parse it. The study noted that Texas (which adopted the question in 2006) demonstrated results that led to "uncertainty" in the final report: California is the only state that revised their death certificate with a pregnancy question inconsistent with the U.S. standard. The California question only asks about pregnancies within the past year. In addition, there were changes over time in specific data provided by California to the National Center for Health Statistics for deaths at less than 42 days, making use of this measure impracticable. Thus, maternal and late maternal deaths were combined for the California trend analysis. Finally, we estimated maternal mortality rates for 48 states and the District of Columbia from 2000 to 2014. California and Texas were excluded from this estimation: California because it does not provide comparable data and Texas as a result of uncertainty regarding recent trends (see Results). In that section, researchers described Texas' atypical spike in maternal mortality and noted that the laws in question were not likely sufficient to account for the spike (referencing a "future study" to obtain more information on Texas): Texas had an unrevised question about pregnancies in the past 12 months and revised to the U.S. standard question in 2006. Adjusted maternal mortality rates for Texas show only a modest increase from 2000 to 2010, from a rate of 17.7 in 2000 to 18.6 in 2010. The slope of this regression line was 0.12 (95% CI 20.22 to 0.46) (564 maternal deaths and 4,246,835 live F4 births) (Fig. 4). However, after 2010, the reported maternal mortality rate for Texas doubled within a 2-year period to levels not seen in other U.S. states. Joinpoint trend analysis was done separately for the 20002010 and the 20112014 periods because the trends for these two periods differed widely. The Texas data are puzzling in that they show a modest increase in maternal mortality from 2000 to 2010 (slope 0.12) followed by a doubling within a 2- year period in the reported maternal mortality rate. In 2006, Texas revised its death certificate, including the addition of the U.S. standard pregnancy question, and also implemented an electronic death certificate. However, the 2006 changes did not appreciably affect the maternal mortality trend after adjustment, and the doubling in the rate occurred in 20112012. Texas cause-of-death data, like with data for most states, are coded at the National Center for Health Statistics, and this doubling in the rate was not found for other states. Communications with vital statistics personnel in Texas and at the National Center for Health Statistics did not identify any data processing or coding changes that would account for this rapid increase. There were some changes in the provision of womens health services in Texas from 2011 to 2015, including the closing of several womens health clinics. Still, in the absence of war, natural disaster, or severe economic upheaval, the doubling of a mortality rate within a 2-year period in a state with almost 400,000 annual births seems unlikely. A future study will examine Texas data by raceethnicity and detailed causes of death to better understand this unusual finding. The study's introduction cited "[e]arlier studies [which] identified significant underreporting of maternal deaths in the National Vital Statistics System," reiterating in its "Discussion" section that variations by state impeded the research: For example, had the National Center for Health Statistics and the Texas vital statistics office both been publishing annual maternal mortality rates, the unusual findings from Texas for 20112014 would certainly have been investigated much sooner and in greater detail. The study noted that Texas demonstrated what appeared to be a spike in maternal mortality between 2011 and 2014, but researchers weren't yet confident that slashed funding for women's healthcare was primarily responsible for the change. Moreover, researchers mentioned widespread underreporting of maternal mortality across all states, positing it was "an international embarrassment that the United States, since 2007, has not been able to provide a national maternal mortality rate to international data repositories such as those run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." Study author Christine Morton told a reporter that the Texas-specific findings remained an unsolved puzzle: told I think everybody is at a loss to understand why Texas saw such an increase in maternal mortality rate. We posited that the documented changes in provisions in women's health services happened in this same time period, but it's hard to knowin the absence of in-depth case review of maternal mortality data in Texashow that lined up with those changes. As the Townhall columnist pointed out, Texas did demonstrate upticks in maternal mortality antedating 2011 clinic funding provisions. State data from 1970 to 2014 evidenced the 2011 to 2014 spike in maternal mortality but exhibited a maternal death rate (a number unaffected by the raw number of deaths or births in any given year) that didn't appear to correlate directly with changes in state laws. In 1970, the maternal death rate hovered at 0.3 per 1,000 live births, dropping to 0.1 in 1977 and remaining virtually static until it rose to 0.2 in 2003. That figure remained fairly constant until 2009, when it reached 0.3 at 116 deaths; 2011 saw identical numbers. In 2012, 2013, and 2014 respectively that rate was 0.3 (121 deaths), 0.4 (153 deaths), and 0.3 (139 deaths): data So the September 2016 study on the United States' maternal mortality rate published in the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology identified a steady increase in maternal deaths in Texas and cited state laws and funding as a potential (not proven) factor in that post-2011 uptick. But study authors bemoaned a lack of comprehensive record-keeping nationwide that impeded research, and the first year maternal deaths began increasing in Texas was 2003 (before clinics were affected by legislative efforts to reduce abortion). Bomberger, Ryan. "The Truth About Texas Maternal Mortality Rates and the Epic Defunding of Planned Parenthood." Townhall. 26 August 2016. Goodwyn, Wade. "Texans Try to Repair Damage Wreaked Upon Family Planning Clinics." NPR. 28 January 2016. MacDorman, Marian F. et.al. "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate." Obstetrics and Gynecology. September 2016. Peters, Adele. "Texas Has the Worst Maternal Mortality Rate in the Developed World." Fast Company. 26 August 2016. Redden, Molly. "Texas Has Highest Maternal Mortality Rate in Developed World, Study Finds." The Guardian. 20 August 2016.

NEI

On 20 August 2016, the UK newspaper The Guardian (among others) published an article about a September 2016 study suggesting that the maternal mortality rate in Texas had doubled in recent years (outstripping that of countries with overall poorer health outcomes):The article noted that reproductive health advocates placed the blame squarely on Texas' unique targeting of reproductive health centers and practices, citing budget cuts, atypically strict reproductive health laws and efforts to defund Planned Parenthood, along with the vast size of the state (which made it difficult for many women to cross state lines to obtain gynecological care unavailable in Texas):Not everyone was convinced the ostensible cause and effect was so clear cut, as noted in a Townhall piece holding that conclusions about Texas' legislative efforts were politically motivated and contradicted by data:Both items cited the study, titled "Recent Increases in the U.S. Maternal Mortality Rate" published [PDF] in the September issue of the journal Obstetrics and Gynecology. Both the study's title and its objective described a nationwide focus on maternal mortality:The study noted that Texas demonstrated what appeared to be a spike in maternal mortality between 2011 and 2014, but researchers weren't yet confident that slashed funding for women's healthcare was primarily responsible for the change. Moreover, researchers mentioned widespread underreporting of maternal mortality across all states, positing it was "an international embarrassment that the United States, since 2007, has not been able to provide a national maternal mortality rate to international data repositories such as those run by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development." Study author Christine Morton told a reporter that the Texas-specific findings remained an unsolved puzzle:As the Townhall columnist pointed out, Texas did demonstrate upticks in maternal mortality antedating 2011 clinic funding provisions. State data from 1970 to 2014 evidenced the 2011 to 2014 spike in maternal mortality but exhibited a maternal death rate (a number unaffected by the raw number of deaths or births in any given year) that didn't appear to correlate directly with changes in state laws. In 1970, the maternal death rate hovered at 0.3 per 1,000 live births, dropping to 0.1 in 1977 and remaining virtually static until it rose to 0.2 in 2003. That figure remained fairly constant until 2009, when it reached 0.3 at 116 deaths; 2011 saw identical numbers. In 2012, 2013, and 2014 respectively that rate was 0.3 (121 deaths), 0.4 (153 deaths), and 0.3 (139 deaths):

FMD_train_1862

Did ISIS Call for the Assassination of Barron Trump?

11/22/2017

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_370

Are Sex Traffickers Tagging Cars as Potential Targets?

08/25/2020

In August 2020, a photograph showing the figures "1f1b" written on the back window of a vehicle began circulating on social media, accompanied by a warning about an alleged tactic used by sex traffickers to flag potential targets. Those sharing this meme claimed that this term stood for either "1 female 1 boy" or "1 female 1 baby," asserting that cars were being tagged with these codes by sex traffickers. The meme gained viral traction when it was posted on actor James Woods' Twitter account. The text read: "A very close friend of mine was out today doing shopping with her child at the Bricktown Walmart. When she left the store, a lady stopped her and made her aware of what was written on her back window (1f1b). I'm just going to assume that it stands for 1 female 1 baby. She was then informed that this is how sex traffickers are tagging cars. Please, please, mothers, fathers, grandparents, aunts, and uncles, be AWARE! Feel free to share! Won't be tagging my friend for personal reasons." The claims made in this viral social media post are unfounded. Police in Bricktown, New Jersey, have stated that they are unaware of any such activity. Before we examine the police statement regarding this matter, let's consider the game of telephone that helped this rumor spread. The text of this post indicates that this incident happened to a "friend of mine." As we read further, we see that this "friend" was warned about this new criminal tactic by a random stranger—not a police officer, a news reporter, or even a Walmart employee, just an anonymous "lady." The original post received a few thousand shares, but this version gained far wider circulation. As the rumor spread, the details became increasingly muddled. One poster, for instance, claimed that this incident took place in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, despite the fact that there is no Walmart in that location. When we trace this rumor back to its origins, we find that the claim is based on something someone saw on Facebook, written by a person asserting that their friend had heard from a stranger that the code "1f1b" was being used by sex traffickers to flag future targets. In other words, this rumor lacks credible origins. The local Patch website reported that Brick Township Sgt. Jim Kelly said the department had not been notified. "We have no reports of anything like this," Kelly stated. He also mentioned that the department has not been alerted by state or federal authorities about any information indicating that criminals are marking vehicles "as a method for anything." It's simply another Facebook rumor without any facts, Kelly said. A new variant of this rumor emerged on social media in July 2021. "AND THIS, THIS IS WHY I CARRY! Not only do I carry, but I'm educated in how to defend myself if ever put in a circumstance like this! Please be aware of your surroundings AT ALL TIMES!" On July 27, 2021, a post described an incident that occurred around 3:30 PM between Prairie Grove and Hogeye, where a truck was stopped by a black Tahoe. A man exited the vehicle and began asking the female driver for directions. She rolled down her window but kept her seatbelt on and doors locked. As the man approached, he punched her in the left eye and cut her arm. Thankfully, she was armed and managed to grab her gun. He fled the scene. She called the police, who advised her that the mark "1FW" on her back window is a human trafficking mark. She had been marked somewhere, and the man followed her, making a move to take her when she was on a road alone. Thankfully, she returned home to her family that night. We are told they often mark mailboxes and trash cans too. This particular marking stands for one female white. This is not the first time that such baseless warnings have gone viral on social media. In July 2019, for example, we reported on the false claim that sex traffickers were flagging targets by placing zip ties on houses, mailboxes, or vehicles. In December of that year, a false rumor circulated that sex traffickers were lying down in front of vehicles to trick them into stopping. That same month saw the spread of another false rumor claiming that roses were being placed on cars to mark potential targets. Human trafficking is a real problem in the world, but the schemes described above are not based on any real-world threats. In fact, The Polaris Project, a non-profit that runs the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline, states that the forced kidnapping aspect of the aforementioned rumors is one of the most prevalent myths regarding trafficking: "The most pervasive myth about human trafficking is that it often involves kidnapping or physically forcing someone into a situation. In reality, most traffickers use psychological means such as tricking, defrauding, manipulating, or threatening victims into providing commercial sex or exploitative labor."

False

In August 2020, a photograph showing the figures "1f1b" written on the back window of a vehicle started to circulate on social media along with a warning about an alleged tactic being used by sex traffickers to flag potential targets. Those sharing this meme claimed that this term stood for either "1 female 1 boy," or "1 female 1 baby," and that cars were being tagged with these codes by sex traffickers. The meme received a viral boost when it was posted to actor James Woods' Twitter account:The text of this post states that this happened to a "friend of mine." When we read a little further, we see that this "friend" was warned about this new criminal tactic by a random stranger. Not a police officer, a news reporter, or even a Walmart employee just an anonymous "lady." The original post received a few thousand shares, but this post received far wider circulation. And the farther we moved away from the rumor's origins, the muddier the details got. One poster, for instance, informed people that this incident took place in Bricktown, Oklahoma City, despite the fact that there is no Walmart in this location.The local Patch website reported:Nor was this the first time that this type of baseless warning has gone viral on social media. In July 2019, for example, we wrote about the false claim that sex traffickers were flagging targets by placing zip ties on houses, mailboxes, or vehicles. In December of that year, a false rumor circulated that sex traffickers were laying down in front of vehicles in order to trick them into stopping. That same month saw the spread of another false rumor holding that roses were being placed on cars to mark potential targets. Human trafficking is a real problem in the world, but the schemes described above are not based on any real-world threats. In fact, The Polaris Project, a non-profit that runs the U.S. National Human Trafficking Hotline, writes that the forced kidnapping aspect of the aforementioned rumors is one of the most prevalent myths when it comes to trafficking:

FMD_train_1442

Pigford v. Glickman

02/28/2011

Claim: The Pigford v. Glickman lawsuit settlement paid out more than $1.25 billion, much of it to fraudulent claimants. OF AND INFORMATION Example: [Collected via e-mail, February 2011] In 1997, 400 African-American farmers sued the United States Department of Agriculture, alleging that they had been unfairly denied USDA loans due to racial discrimination during the period 1983 to 1997. The case was entitled "Pigford vs. Glickman" and in 1999, the black farmers won their case. The government agreed to pay each of them as much as $50,000 to settle their claims. But then on February 23, 2010, something shocking happened in relation to that original judgment: In total silence, the USDA agreed to release more funds to "Pigford". The amount was a staggering...... $1.25 billion. This was because the original number of plaintiffs - 400 black farmers had now swollen, in a class action suit, to include a total of 86,000 black farmers throughout America. There was only one teensy problem: The United States of America doesn't have 86,000 black farmers!!!! According to accurate and totally verifiable Official USDA 2007 Census census data, the total number of black farmers throughout America is only 39,697. Hmmm... by the Official USDA 1992 Census data the US had only 18,816 black farmers!! Oops!! Well, gosh - how on earth did 39,697 explode into the fraudulent 86,000 claims?? And how did $50,000 explode into $1.25 billion?? Well, folks, you'll just have to ask the woman who not only spearheaded this case because of her position in 1997 at the "Rural Development Leadership Network", but whose family received the highest single payout (approximately $13 million) from that action - Shirley Sherrod. Oops again!! Yes, folks it appears that Ms. Sherrod had just unwittingly exposed herself as the perpetrator of one of the biggest fraud claims in the history of the United States a fraud enabled solely because she screamed racism at the government and cowed them into submission. And it gets even more interesting... Ms. Sherrod has also exposed the person who aided and abetted her in thisrace fraud. As it turns out, the original judgment of "Pigford vs. Glickman" in 1999 only applied to a total of about 16,000 black farmers.But....in 2008, a junior US Senator got a law passed to reopen the case and allow more black farmers to sue for funds. The Senator was Barack Hussein Obama.. Because this law was passed in dead silence, and because the woman responsible for spearheading it was an obscure USDA official, American taxpayers did not realize that they had just been forced in the midst of a worldwide recession to pay out more than $1.25 billion to settle a race claim. Origins: Pigford v. Glickman was a lawsuit filed by Timothy Pigford in 1997 against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), naming Secretary of Agriculture Dan Glickman as the defendant. Pigford, who was initially joined by an additional 400 plaintiffs (the case eventually expanded into class action lawsuit representing thousands of farmers), maintained that the USDA had discriminated against black farmers on the basis of race in determining how to allocate various government support loans, disaster payments, and other financial assistance to farmers and had failed to investigate or properly respond to complaints of this nature from 1983 to 1997: Litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) for discrimination against African American farmers began inAugust 1997 with two suits brought by black farmers, Pigford v. Glickman and Brewington v. Glickman, but its origins go back much further. For many years, black farmers had complained that they were not receiving fair treatment when they applied to local county committees (which make the decisions) for farm loans or assistance. These farmers alleged that they were being denied USDA farm loans or forced to wait longer for loan approval than were non-minority farmers. Many black farmers contended that they were facing foreclosure and financial ruin because the USDA denied them timely loans and debt restructuring. Moreover, many claimed that the USDA was not responsive to discrimination complaints. A huge agency backlog of unresolved complaints began to build after the USDA's Civil Rights Office was closed in 1983. According to [a USDA] commissioned study, few appeals were made by minority complainants because of the slowness of the process, the lack of confidence in the decision makers, the lack of knowledge about the rules, and the significant bureaucracy involved in the process. Other findings showed that (1) the largest USDA loans (top 1%) went to corporations (65%) and white male farmers (25%); (2) loans to black males averaged $4,000 (or 25%) less than those given towhite males; and (3) 97% of disaster payments went to white farmers, while less than 1% went to black farmers. The study reported that the reasons for discrepancies in treatment between black and white farmers could not be easily determined due to "gross deficiencies" in USDA data collection and handling. Under a consent decree that consolidated and settled the Pigford and Brewington cases, any African American who (1) farmed or attempted to farm between January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, (2) applied to USDA for farm credit or program benefits and believed that he or she was discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and (3) made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997, was eligible to receive a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability. As of January 2011, a total of $769,400,000 had been paid out 15,388 claimants. total In response to claims that a large number of applicants were not fairly considered because, due to a lack of notice, they filed late and were denied review, Republican Senators George Allen and Charles Grassley introduced unsuccessful Congressional bills (in 2006 and 2007, respectively) to provide a mechanism for these applicants to have their claims considered. Finally, in January 2008 several members of Congress (one of whom was Senator Barack Obama of Illinois) urged the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to include in an upcoming farm bill a provision allowing "certain claimants who submitted late-filing requests under Pigford v. Glickman consent decree opportunity to receive determinations of their claims on their merits." These additional claims ultimately resulted in a $1.25 billion settlement: George Allen Charles Grassley urged farm bill Due to concerns about the large number of applicants who did not obtain a determination on the merits of their claims under the original Pigford settlement, Congress included a provision in the 2008 farm bill that permitted any claimant who had submitted a late-filing request under Pigford and who had not previously obtained a determination on the merits of his or her claim to petition in federal court to obtain such a determination. This provision did not reopen the previous Pigford litigation, but rather provided such farmers with a new right to sue. Ultimately, 11 separate lawsuits were filed on behalf of over 25,000 black farmers, and these claims were consolidated into a single case, In re Black Farmers Discrimination Litigation (commonly referred to as Pigford II). On February 18, 2010, Attorney General Holder and Secretary of Agriculture Vilsack announced a $1.25 billion settlement of these Pigford II claims. In response to claims that the number of applicants in the Pigford cases exceeded the number of black farmers enumerated by census information, the Congressional Research Service reported that: Questions have been raised about the number of black farmers who were or are eligible for a settlement under Pigford or Pigford II. Determining the number of African American farm operators who farmed during the period of January 1, 1981, and December 31, 1996, is difficult because of the way in which the Census of Agriculture defined farm operator. Prior to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, only principal farm operators were counted. In the 1982 Census of Agriculture, there were 33,250 African American-operated farms; in 1987, 22,954; in 1992, 18,816; and in 1997, 18,451. Essentially, the number of African American farms was treated as synonymous with the number of African American operators. These statistics, however, failed to recognize that many farms are operated by more than one farm operator. In 2002, the Census of Agriculture collected data for a maximum of three principal operators per farm. The 2002 Census enumerated 29,090 African American farm operators. This statistical change more accurately captured the actual number of operators, that is, those who areactually engaged in farming. For example, a single farm may be operated by four or more operators, each of whom could have conceivably made loan applications to USDA agencies. In addition, a farm operator might operate rented or leased land owned by a principal operator. In such a case, that operator renting or leasing farmland would not have been counted as the operator of that farm. Under the term of the consent decree, however, such a farmer could be an eligible claimant because he or she farmed or tried to farm during the requisite time period. The varying Census definitions of farm, farm operator, and farm owner help explain why the number of initial claimants in the Pigford case (approximately 94,000) was higher than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated by the Census of Agriculture between 1982 and 1997 and why the estimated number of potential Pigford II claimants may be greater than the number of farms/farm operators enumerated in those or subsequent Census counts. In addition, it is important to note that there may be other reasons for discrepancies between the number of farmers reflected in farm Census data and the number of claimants under Pigford or Pigford II. For example, individuals who attempted to farm but who were denied loans or other farm assistance would not be counted as farmers but may have been or may be eligible to file a claim under the terms of the two settlement agreements. Likewise, the estate of a deceased individual who farmed or attempted to farm during the eligibility period may be entitled to relief under either settlement, but such persons would not be counted as farm operators. Finally, due to fraud or mistake, some individuals who are not eligible may have filed or may file claims under Pigford or Pigford II, but such claims would not be entitled to an award. For example, nearly 7,000 Track A claims in Pigford (31%) were denied relief, presumably because such claims lacked merit or had other defects. Thus, the number of claims filed cannot be viewed as an accurate representation of the number of awards that have been or will be made under the two settlements. In April 2013, the New York Times reported that the latter settlement was agreed to despite substantial objections from those who maintained that there was no credible basis for it, and that the process for compensation was wide open to fraudulent claims: The deal, several current and former government officials said, was fashioned in White House meetings despite the vehement objections until now undisclosed of career lawyers and agency officials who had argued that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination. What is more, some protested, the template for the deal the $50,000 payouts to black farmers had proved a magnet for fraud. The compensation effort sprang from a desire to redress what the government and a federal judge agreed was a painful legacy of bias against African-Americans by the Agriculture Department. But an examination by The New York Times shows that it became a runaway train, driven by racial politics, pressure from influential members of Congress and law firms that stand to gain more than $130 million in fees. In the past five years, it has grown to encompass a second group of African-Americans as well as Hispanic, female and Native American farmers. In all, more than 90,000 people have filed claims. The total cost could top $4.4 billion. From the start, the claims process prompted allegations of widespread fraud and criticism that its very design encouraged people to lie: because relatively few records remained to verify accusations, claimants were not required to present documentary evidence that they had been unfairly treated or had even tried to farm. Agriculture Department reviewers found reams of suspicious claims, from nursery-school-age children and pockets of urban dwellers, sometimes in the same handwriting with nearly identical accounts of discrimination. Shirley Sherrod was the USDA's Georgia State Director of Rural Development who was forced to resign in July 2010 after video excerpts from her address to a March 2010 NAACP event were posted on the Internet, excerpts which supposedly caught her describing how she discriminated against a white farmer who sought her help in 1986 when his farm was about to be foreclosed on. However, a review of the unedited video in its full context revealed that Sherrod said she had in fact extended help to the farmer in question: In the heart of a farm community that still favored whites over blacks, with the USDA known as the "last plantation," Sherrod was tasked with helping Eloise and Roger Spooner save their farm. As she recounted many years later in a now widely viewed speech, Sherrod, by then working at a nonprofit organization that assisted farmers in danger of losing their farms, did not feel particularly motivated to help the Spooners, a white couple. Eventually, as any viewing of the entire speech makes clear, Sherrod changed her mind. She did help the couple, with whom she has remained friendly, and the experience became a turning point in her life when she learned to see beyond skin color and sought to work with blacks and whites battling to save small family farms that were shuttering by the thousands. White House officials subsequently issued an apology to Sherrod and offered her a new position with the USDA (which she declined). Shirley Sherrod and her husband received a share of a $13 million payment as part of the settlement of the Pigford case, as described by Time magazine: It was 1985, 20 years after her father was murdered by a white man who was never prosecuted, and the nearly 6,000-acre collective farm she had helped form in the early 1970s to create a sort of African-American utopia in the midst of Georgia's white farming community was going under. Governor Lester Maddox, a segregationist, called the tract of land "Sharecropper City," and refused to sign off on a grant that could have helped the families who owned the farm stay afloat. They had applied for loans from the Department of Agriculture's Farmers Home Administration, but often they were turned down or approved late in the crop season, delaying planting and harvesting, to devastating economic effect. The USDA would not let the collective restructure loans or take over the land and lease it back, as had been done for other farmers. Eventually, the land was sold to a white businessman and later turned into subdivisions. Back then, local USDA offices with power over loans were run by whites, and it took three times as long, on average, to process loan applications from black farmers as it did for whites. The Reagan Administration had shuttered the civil rights division in the USDA, which meant that complaints about discrimination were routinely discarded or thrown in drawers even as black ownership of farmland was on a steep decline. The failure of New Communities was so emotionally devastating to its participants that Shirley Sherrod's husband Charles later told the Washington Post, "For two years after all this happened, I wouldn't even talk about it. Couldn't talk about it, it hurt so much." But [Shirley] Sherrod did not let the USDA off the hook. New Communities became part of a massive class-action lawsuit against the department that was initially settled in 1999, reopened in 2008 and continues to pay claims for thousands of black farmers found to have been ignored, dismissed or mistreated by the USDA in the 1980s and 1990s. Out of about $1 billion paid out so far reportedly the biggest civil rights settlement in history the largest amount went to New Communities, which got some $13 million, with $330,000 awarded to Shirley and Charles Sherrod for mental suffering alone. "Thirteen million sounds like a lot, but it was not nearly enough. The land itself is probably worth at least $9 million," says the lawyer for New Communities, Rose Sanders. Last updated: 28 April 2013 Hennessey, Kathleen. "Hard Feelings About Handling of Shirley Sherrod Have Deep Roots." Los Angeles Times 4 August 2010. Pickert, Kate. "When Shirley Sherrod Was First Wronged by the USDA." Time. 23 July 2010.

NEI

discriminated against by the USDA on the basis of race, and (3) made a complaint against the USDA on or before July 1, 1997, was eligible to receive a monetary settlement of $50,000 plus relief in the form of loan forgiveness and offsets of tax liability. As of January 2011, a total of $769,400,000 had been paid out 15,388 claimants.In response to claims that a large number of applicants were not fairly considered because, due to a lack of notice, they filed late and were denied review, Republican Senators George Allen and Charles Grassley introduced unsuccessful Congressional bills (in 2006 and 2007, respectively) to provide a mechanism for these applicants to have their claims considered. Finally, in January 2008 several members of Congress (one of whom was Senator Barack Obama of Illinois) urged the Senate and House Agriculture Committees to include in an upcoming farm bill a provision allowing "certain claimants who submitted late-filing requests under Pigford v. Glickman consent decree opportunity to receive determinations of their claims on their merits." These additional claims ultimately resulted in a $1.25 billion settlement:

FMD_train_1729

Can “Clean Coal” Actually Reduce Carbon Emissions?

11/14/2016

Clean coal, a broad term for technology that can reduce the environmental impact of burning coal, has become a popular political buzzword in the past two U.S. presidential campaigns. To those who promote it, clean coal is a third way that will allow humans to continue to mine and burn that form of fossil fuel in a more responsible way, obviating the need for regulations on the coal industry or heavy investment in green energy. To detractors, it is an expensive marketing ploy selling an unrealized and unrealistic fantasy. marketing ploy Humans have used coal as fuel for at least 4000 years. A combustible rock formed from the chemical transformation of organic plant matter over hundreds of millions of years of burial, coal is a relatively cheap and easy source of energy. Its widespread use powered the industrial revolution, and coal-burning power plants currently provide 33% of all household energy in the States. 4000 years power plants But for as long as coal has been an energy source, it has been plagued by environmental issues. Burning coal produces hazardous acid rain and irritating particulate matter, and it releases climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. plagued From a global warming standpoint, burning coal is significantly worse than burning other fossil fuels, as its chemistry allows for the production of more CO2 per reaction, as discussed in a December 2010 Atlantic article about clean coal technology: article Compared with most other fossil-fuel sources of energy, coal is inherently worse from a carbon-footprint perspective, since its hydrogen atoms come bound with more carbon atoms, meaning that coal starts with a higher carbon-to-hydrogen ratio than oil, natural gas, or other hydrocarbons. This situation is especially unfortunate for the United States, since the country has large domestic reserves of cheap coal, and because many local economies depend on coal mining jobs that could be lost if regulations were to make coal economically unfeasible. The intersection of these environmental and economic concerns has made coal mining and energy a polarizing political issue in the United States. domestic reserves Clean coal is not a special type of coal, nor is it a new technology that reduces the environmental impact of coal mining. Instead, it refers to technology used to clean up the emissions from burning coal after it has already been burned for energy, or technology used to treat coal just prior to being burned. In the context of global warming, the main technology that is cited is carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, defined on the U.S. Department of Energy web site thusly: defined Carbon capture, utilization and storage (CCUS), also referred to as carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, is a process that captures carbon dioxide emissions from sources like coal-fired power plants and either reuses or stores it so it will not enter the atmosphere. Carbon dioxide storage in geologic formations includes oil and gas reservoirs, unmineable coal seams and deep saline reservoirs -- structures that have stored crude oil, natural gas, brine and carbon dioxide over millions of years. The term clean coal was first used by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1980s during an initiative they sponsored to demonstrate the commercial viability of technology that could scrub acid-rain creating toxins from the emissions of coal burning. At the time of the initiative, acid rain was the primary environmental concern, and greenhouse gases were an afterthought: afterthought The early program, however, was focused on the environmental challenges of the time primarily concerns over the impact of acid rain on forests and watersheds. In the 21st century, additional environmental concerns have emerged the potential health impacts of trace emissions of mercury, the effects of microscopic particles on people with respiratory problems, and the potential global climate-altering impact of greenhouse gases. The term was, in effect, rebranded in 2007 by an industry-funded group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, who were concerned about the prospect of increased coal regulations under an Obama presidency. They made the term clean coal a household name through a 30 million dollar public relations campaign touting the benefits of clean coal technology. campaign The problem, though, is that from the standpoint of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the technology (for all practical purposes) does not yet exist on a scale that could be considered at all meaningful. In terms of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technology, the only projects underway in the United States are pilot studies. These are not viable on larger scale, as the DOE admits: technology admits Today, there are commercially available First Generation CO2 capture technologies that are being used in various small-scale industrial applications. At their current state of development these technologies are not ready for widespread deployment on fossil fuel based power plants [...]. Furthermore, there are a number of barriers to the successful implementation of carbon capture technology at coal-burning power plants, as discussed in a report by the British humanitarian think tank the Overseas Development Institute. First, the pace and scale of carbon capture technology is unlikely to overcome its limitations in a time period that would have any relevance to reducing atmospheric CO2: report Essentially, coal-powered CCS has yet to be technologically proven as planned even at a quarter-scale. With per-plant investments running to the billions, this stepping-stone from laboratory to full commercial rollout of just the first phase of coal-powered CCS plants is incredibly important and getting past it is going to take years. Although the industry might argue that it is close, it has clearly not yet refined an off-the-shelf product. The investment and time needed to build, test, and learn from projects to reduce costs means that CCS for coal power will not be ready to be commercially deployed at scale for at least a decade. Second, implementation of CCS makes the cost of coal too high to be competitive, and it reduces its output by consuming energy from the power plant trying to sell that energy: To capture CO2 at a power station requires adding a large separation unit, which also requires a significant amount of power to run. Adding the extra process currently doubles the capital costs of a plant, while running the separation process effectively decreases the overall efficiency of the plant by around a quarter. This efficiency penalty means that only the most efficient coal plant (advanced coal) can feasibly be used with CCS. Together these mean that adding CCS to a coal-fired plant will make the electricity it produces substantially more expensive than both conventional and advanced current coal plants. These problems were made plainly visible by a recent pilot study of a coal-burning power plant in Canadas Saskatchewan province that used a nearby hydroelectric dam to power the separation of CO2 from its exhaust. Though early reports painted a rosy picture, a March 2016 New York Times article suggested that the system was affected by a number of critical problems: article Known as SaskPowers Boundary Dam 3, the project has been plagued by multiple shutdowns, has fallen way short of its emissions targets, and faces an unresolved problem with its core technology. The costs, too, have soared, requiring tens of millions of dollars in new equipment and repairs. At the outset, its economics were dubious, said Cathy Sproule, a member of Saskatchewans legislature who released confidential internal documents about the project. Now theyre a disaster. This is not to say that research into minimizing the effect of the emissions from coal burning is necessarily futile. As discussed in a 2010 Atlantic article, there are two arguments to be made in favor of funding clean coal technology: article One is that coal can be used in less damaging, more sustainable ways than it is now. The other is that it must be used in those ways, because there is no plausible other way to meet what will be, absent an economic or social cataclysm, the worlds unavoidable energy demands. The latler argument is a staple of the pro-coal camp, who argue that, like it or not, we are going to have to use coal in the future to supply energy for our country. So why not try to make it cleaner in the process? staple The push against that argument is well summarized by a comment made by Mary Finley-Brook, a professor of geography, environmental studies and international studies at the University of Richmond in Virginia, to the science news website Live Science: Live Science "Clean coal does not currently exist," Finley-Brook wrote in an email. "It will be expensive to develop and is uncertain (unlikely) to work, depending on what technology is selected. This is moving in the wrong direction from a climate change mitigation perspective. We need energy transition away from fossil fuels, not nice-sounding names to confuse people who don't know better." Regardless of ones view on the philosophical debate about spending money to clean a technology we may begrudgingly have to use for years to come, the fact is that currently, so-called "clean coal" technology can for now do nothing to reduce carbon emissions on any appreciable or significant scale.

NEI

Clean coal, a broad term for technology that can reduce the environmental impact of burning coal, has become a popular political buzzword in the past two U.S. presidential campaigns. To those who promote it, clean coal is a third way that will allow humans to continue to mine and burn that form of fossil fuel in a more responsible way, obviating the need for regulations on the coal industry or heavy investment in green energy. To detractors, it is an expensive marketing ploy selling an unrealized and unrealistic fantasy.Humans have used coal as fuel for at least 4000 years. A combustible rock formed from the chemical transformation of organic plant matter over hundreds of millions of years of burial, coal is a relatively cheap and easy source of energy. Its widespread use powered the industrial revolution, and coal-burning power plants currently provide 33% of all household energy in the States.But for as long as coal has been an energy source, it has been plagued by environmental issues. Burning coal produces hazardous acid rain and irritating particulate matter, and it releases climate-warming greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.From a global warming standpoint, burning coal is significantly worse than burning other fossil fuels, as its chemistry allows for the production of more CO2 per reaction, as discussed in a December 2010 Atlantic article about clean coal technology:This situation is especially unfortunate for the United States, since the country has large domestic reserves of cheap coal, and because many local economies depend on coal mining jobs that could be lost if regulations were to make coal economically unfeasible. The intersection of these environmental and economic concerns has made coal mining and energy a polarizing political issue in the United States.Clean coal is not a special type of coal, nor is it a new technology that reduces the environmental impact of coal mining. Instead, it refers to technology used to clean up the emissions from burning coal after it has already been burned for energy, or technology used to treat coal just prior to being burned. In the context of global warming, the main technology that is cited is carbon capture, utilization and sequestration, defined on the U.S. Department of Energy web site thusly:The term clean coal was first used by the US Department of Energy (DOE) in 1980s during an initiative they sponsored to demonstrate the commercial viability of technology that could scrub acid-rain creating toxins from the emissions of coal burning. At the time of the initiative, acid rain was the primary environmental concern, and greenhouse gases were an afterthought:The term was, in effect, rebranded in 2007 by an industry-funded group called the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, who were concerned about the prospect of increased coal regulations under an Obama presidency. They made the term clean coal a household name through a 30 million dollar public relations campaign touting the benefits of clean coal technology.The problem, though, is that from the standpoint of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, the technology (for all practical purposes) does not yet exist on a scale that could be considered at all meaningful. In terms of carbon capture, utilization and sequestration technology, the only projects underway in the United States are pilot studies. These are not viable on larger scale, as the DOE admits:Furthermore, there are a number of barriers to the successful implementation of carbon capture technology at coal-burning power plants, as discussed in a report by the British humanitarian think tank the Overseas Development Institute. First, the pace and scale of carbon capture technology is unlikely to overcome its limitations in a time period that would have any relevance to reducing atmospheric CO2:These problems were made plainly visible by a recent pilot study of a coal-burning power plant in Canadas Saskatchewan province that used a nearby hydroelectric dam to power the separation of CO2 from its exhaust. Though early reports painted a rosy picture, a March 2016 New York Times article suggested that the system was affected by a number of critical problems:This is not to say that research into minimizing the effect of the emissions from coal burning is necessarily futile. As discussed in a 2010 Atlantic article, there are two arguments to be made in favor of funding clean coal technology:The latler argument is a staple of the pro-coal camp, who argue that, like it or not, we are going to have to use coal in the future to supply energy for our country. So why not try to make it cleaner in the process?The push against that argument is well summarized by a comment made by Mary Finley-Brook, a professor of geography, environmental studies and international studies at the University of Richmond in Virginia, to the science news website Live Science:

FMD_train_616

Drilling Rig Tornado

04/18/2006

Claim: A photograph taken in West Texas shows a tornado funnel and lightning bolt alongside a drilling rig. Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2008] Drilling Rig Talk about your one-in-a-million photo. Imagine this... You are working the night shift on a drilling rig in West Texas, south of the small town of Ft. Stockton. It is very dark, and there have been thunderstorms in the area. The only lights in the vicinity are those on the drilling rig and some faint red glows from a nearby radio tower. You begin to wonder where that freight train sound is coming from since there are no tracks near the rig. A friendly bolt of lightning gives you the answer... one you may not have wanted to know. Remember that these monsters frequently happen at night. Origins: The photograph displayed above began circulating in mid-2008 with text claiming that it was taken in the West Texas town of Fort Stockton. However, although elements of the image are real, the underlying photograph was neither snapped in 2008 nor in Texas, and the image itself has been digitally manipulated to add a drilling rig that was not present in the original. The original image was forwarded around the Internet in the wake of a series of violent storms that hit Missouri in March 2006, with 44 different tornadoes touching down in the state on March 11-12, leaving 10 people dead and more than 100 injured, and destroying or damaging over 1,000 homes. Shortly afterward, the striking tornado funnel and lightning bolt photograph began to circulate, accompanied by text claiming it had been taken in Sedalia, Missouri, during that series of storms: "This photo was taken in Sedalia, Missouri, on 3/12/06 when over 113 tornadoes were reported. This was an excellent shot. This was posted in one of my weather groups, and as long as we give full credit where credit is due, credit is really due on this shot... Amazing... But it does make you wonder... Look at our logo... Mother Nature imitating art..." Although this version of the image was genuine, it was not snapped in Sedalia, Missouri, and it long antedates the series of storms that hit that state in March 2006. As recorded by the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Melbourne, Florida, the tornado funnel/lightning bolt photograph was taken near Lake Okeechobee, Florida, on June 15, 1991. It has been available for purchase (in poster form) through the Tornado Project's online store since at least mid-2001. Photograph purchase Last updated: May 20, 2009.

False

The original image was forwarded around the Internet in the wake of a series of violent storms which hit Missouri in March 2006, with 44 different tornadoes touching down in the state on March 11-12, leaving 10 people dead and more than 100 injured, and destroying or damaging over 1,000 homes. Shortly afterwards, the striking tornado funnel and lightning bolt photograph began to circulate accompanied by text claiming it had been taken in Sedalia, Missouri, during that series of storms:Although this version of the image was genuine, it was not snapped in Sedalia, Missouri, and it long antedates the series of storms which hit that state in March 2006. As recorded by the National Weather Service Forecast Office in Melbourne, Florida, the tornado funnel/lightning bolt photograph was taken near Lake Okeechobee, Florida, on 15 June 1991. It has been available for purchase (in poster form) through the Tornado Project's on-line store since at least mid-2001.

FMD_train_1674

Under Donald Trump's tax plan, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers -- people earning multiple millions of dollars a year, on average -- would get more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined.

05/20/2016

For being Hillary Clinton's surrogates, two Wisconsin lawmakers sounded rather like Bernie Sanders when they spoke with reporters to denounce Donald Trump's tax plan. "For the billionaires, by the billionaires," state Rep. Cory Mason of Racine declared in the May 11, 2016 teleconference, which was arranged by Clinton's Wisconsin campaign. Mason was joined by fellow Democrat Jennifer Shilling of La Crosse, the Senate minority leader. Her attack was more specific. Shilling stated that with Trump's plan, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers—people earning multiple millions of dollars a year, on average—would receive more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined. Economic inequality has been a signature issue for Sanders, whose presidential campaign has kept Clinton from claiming the presumptive nominee title Trump has on the Republican side. When Sanders said in Madison that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we rated his claim Mostly True. Let's take a look at Shilling's one-tenth of 1 percenters claim—which, as we’ll see, was made at something of a moving target. The figures Standing in the lobby of Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan in September 2015, Trump rolled out his tax reform plan—which some analysts immediately saw as a boon for the wealthy. He proposed significant cuts across the board, PolitiFact National found, but the wealthiest would receive the most in tax cuts. For the highest income earners, the top income tax rate would drop from 39.6 percent to 25 percent. When we asked about Shilling's claim, Clinton's Wisconsin campaign cited an analysis by the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of two Washington, D.C. think tanks: the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution. The analysis found that on average, under Trump's plan, households at all income levels would receive tax cuts—but the highest-income households would receive the largest cuts, both in dollars and as a percentage of income. More specific to Shilling's claim: The highest-income 0.1 percent of taxpayers—those who had an income of over $3.7 million in 2015—would get an average tax cut of more than $1.3 million in 2017. That same group would receive 18 percent of the tax reduction, while the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers would receive 16.4 percent of the reduction. At our request, the liberal Citizens for Tax Justice also did calculations, which came out nearly the same: The top 0.1 percent would get 17 percent of Trump's proposed tax cuts, and the bottom 60 percent would get 13 percent of the cuts. To some extent, this isn’t a surprise, in that the wealthiest pay the lion's share of income taxes. In a June 2015 report, the Tax Policy Center said the top 0.1 percent pay 21.1 percent of all individual income taxes, while the bottom 60 percent pays 1.5 percent. Alan Cole, an economist with the Tax Foundation, also ran the numbers and told us Shilling's claim is accurate. But Cole noted that under Trump's plan: -- People in the 40th to 60th percentiles have about 99 percent of their income tax liability removed. -- People in the 0 to 40th percentiles who paid positive income taxes have about 100 percent of their income tax liability removed. "So the reason Trump's plan doesn't cut middle-class income taxes by more than that is, well, you can't cut middle-class income taxes by more than that," Cole said. So, the figures back Shilling. The thing is, shortly before she made her claim, Trump's tax proposal was changing. Sort of. Maybe. Or was it? Trump's equivocation In the three days prior, Trump said he might raise, not lower, taxes on the wealthy. Then he indicated the wealthy would get tax cuts, but the cuts might be less than what is in his plan. And then Politico reported that Trump's campaign had enlisted conservative economists to revise his plan, and that they were advising a top tax rate of 28 percent—higher than the 25 percent in Trump's proposal. All of which has caused some confusion as to what Trump would do with taxes. Nevertheless, by the time Shilling made her statement, Trump had not changed his tax proposal, which remained on his campaign website. (Indeed, for what it's worth, the day after Shilling's claim, a Trump spokeswoman told the New York Times: "There are no changes being made to the plan.") Our rating Shilling said that under Trump's tax plan, the top 0.1 percent of taxpayers—people earning multiple millions of dollars a year, on average—would get more tax relief than the bottom 60 percent of taxpayers combined. A report from a respected nonpartisan research group calculates that the 0.1 percent—those making more than $3.7 million per year—would receive 18 percent of the tax cuts under Trump's proposal. The bottom 60 percent of taxpayers, meanwhile, would enjoy only 16.4 percent of the cuts. Another tax group found similar figures. Trump has indicated he might alter his tax proposal, but he hadn't as of when Shilling made her statement—so we rate the statement True. Watch the WTMJ-TV PolitiFact segment on this fact check. PolitiFact segments air during the 6 p.m. newscasts Wednesdays and Fridays.

True

For beingHillary Clintonsurrogates, two Wisconsin lawmakers sounded rather likeBernie Sanderswhen they got on the phone with reporters to denounce Donald Trumps tax plan.Forthe billionaires,bythe billionaires, state Rep.Cory Masonof Racine declared in the May 11, 2016 teleconference, which was arranged by Clintons Wisconsin campaign.Mason was joined by fellow DemocratJennifer Shillingof La Crosse, the Senate minority leader. Her attack was more specific.Economic inequality has been a signature issue for Sanders, whose presidential campaign has kept Clinton from claiming the presumptive nominee titleTrumphas on the Republican side.When Sanders said in Madison that the top one-tenth of 1 percent of Americans own almost as much wealth as the bottom 90 percent, we rated his claimMostly True.Standing in the lobby of Trump Tower in midtown Manhattan in September 2015, Trumprolled outhistax reform plan-- which some analysts immediately saw as a boon for the wealthy.He proposed significant cuts across the board,PolitiFact National found, but the wealthiest would get the most in tax cuts. For the highest income earners, the top income tax rate would drop from 39.6 percent to 25 percent.When we asked about Shillings claim, Clintons Wisconsin campaign citedan analysisby the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center, a joint venture of two Washington, D.C. think tanks: the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution.To some extent, this isnt a surprise, in that the wealthiest pay the lions share of income taxes. In aJune 2015 report, the Tax Policy Center said the top 0.1 percent pay 21.1 percent of all individual income taxes and the bottom 60 percent pays 1.5 percent.The thing is, shortly before she made her claim, Trumps tax proposalwas changing. Sort of. Maybe. Or was it?In the three days prior,Trump saidhe might raise, not lower, taxes on the wealthy. Thenhe indicatedthe wealthy would get tax cuts, but the cuts might be less than what is in his plan. And thenPolitico reportedthat Trumps campaign had enlisted conservative economists to revise his plan, and that they were advising a top tax rate of 28 percent -- higher than the 25 percent in Trumps proposal.Nevertheless, by the time Shilling made her statement, Trump had not changed histax proposal, which remained on his campaign website.(Indeed, for what it's worth, the day after Shillings claim, a Trump spokeswomantold the New York Times: There are no changes being made to the plan.)Watch the WTMJ-TV PolitiFact segment on this fact check. PolitiFact segments air during the 6 p.m. newscasts Wednesdays and Fridays.

FMD_train_368

Did a Black Lives Matter organizer express indifference towards looting by stating, 'I am not concerned if an individual chooses to engage in looting'?

08/28/2020

After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue. Latrell Allen extended The following evening, members of the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement held a solidarity rally in that city with some of the people who had been arrested for looting the night before. Shortly after those events, social media users began circulating a meme stemming from that event, quoting a "BLM leader & organizer" named Ariel Atkins as saying, "I don't care if someone decides to loot, because that makes sure that person eats or has clothes. Anything they want to take, they can, because these businesses have insurance": That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event: reported Members of Black Lives Matter held a solidarity rally on Monday night [August 10] with the more than 100 individuals who were arrested after a night of looting and unrest in Chicago. The rally was held at the South Loop police station where organizers say those individuals are currently being held in custody. I dont care if someone decides to loot a Gucci or a Macys or a Nike store, because that makes sure that person eats, Ariel Atkins, a BLM organizer, said. That makes sure that person has clothes. Black Lives Matter Chicago organized the rally after overnight unrest throughout the city, with police saying that more than 100 individuals were taken into custody for a variety of offenses, including looting. That is reparations, Atkins said. Anything they wanted to take, they can take it because these businesses have insurance. Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting": interviewed A lot of people are really attacking our pages. Theyre like, Oh, you support the looters. And yeah, we do, 100%. Thats reparations. And like however people choose to protest, especially if it was definitely in line with what happened with the shooting, which would be powerful to see people reacting ... without organizers just being like, Were angry and this is what were gonna do. Were gonna take the power back. I feel like these stores, these Macys, these Guccis, the PNC Banks, theyre not here for us. The city puts way more money and investment into spending time and protecting their spaces and making sure that they exist. And yet our people are constantly being pushed out of the city ... Unemployment is incredibly high, like we are in an incredible situation, and the fact that anybody gives a s*** about these businesses over what is happening in this city right now and the pain that people are in and the suffering that is taking place, I dont care. I will support the looters till the end of the day. If thats what they need to do in order to eat, then thats what youve got to do to eat .... The whole idea of criminality is based on racism anyway, because criminality is punishing people for things that they have needed to do to survive or just the way that society has affected them with white supremacist B.S. So its like her deciding what is criminal and what isnt. WMAQ-TV [Chicago]. "Black Lives Matter Holds Rally Supporting Individuals Arrested in Chicago Looting Monday." 10 August 2020. Black, Curtis. &nbps; "Latrell Allen Police Shooting Exposes Gaps in Body Camera and Foot Pursuit Policies." The Chicago Reporter. 14 August 2020. Yoon-Ji Kang, Esther. "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say." WBEZ [Chicago]. 10 August 2020. Wildeboer, Rob and Chip Mitchell. "Officers Disrespected Englewood Residents Following Police Shooting, Activists Say." WBEZ [Chicago]. 12 August 2020.

True

After the police shooting of 20-year-old Latrell Allen in Chicago's Englewood community on the afternoon of Aug. 9, 2020, unrest in that city extended through that night and into the early morning hours of the following day, with looters hitting some stores in Chicagos wealthiest shopping district on North Michigan Avenue.That was an accurate quote, according to Chicago NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, who reported on the Aug. 10 event:Atkins said essentially the same thing a few days later, when she was interviewed by Chicago NPR station WBEZ on the subject of "why she supports looting":

FMD_train_1658

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

04/26/2023

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

True

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

FMD_train_1869

Did GOP Vote To Raise Debt Ceiling 3 Times with No Preconditions During Trump Era?

05/03/2023

On April 26, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Republicans, narrowly passed budget legislation raising the federal government's legal debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion on the condition that deep spending cuts would also be undertaken. Democrats balked at the spending-cuts requirement, demanding instead the passage of what they called a "clean bill" without preconditions to raise the debt ceiling before the deadline of June 1, when the government would default on its debts. Some Democrats, notably U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., argued that by demanding budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans were "creating an economic crisis" and "threatening default" for partisan gain. No such demands were made during the administration of former President Donald Trump, Omar noted in a May tweet: "Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling 3 times when Donald Trump was President, with no preconditions." What exactly is the debt ceiling? This is how the U.S. Department of the Treasury defines it (emphasis added): The debt ceiling, or debt limit, is a restriction imposed by Congress on the amount of outstanding national debt that the federal government can have. The debt ceiling is the amount that the Treasury can borrow to pay the bills that have become due and to fund future investments. Once the debt ceiling is reached, the federal government cannot increase the amount of outstanding debt, losing the ability to pay bills and fund programs and services. Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit—49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents. It is true that during the Trump administration, legislation to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default was passed three times with varying degrees of bipartisan support, according to the Bipartisan Policy Center. In 2017, 2018, and 2019, the debt limit was reset at $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion, and $28.4 trillion, respectively. None of these bills, when signed into law, contained a precondition to cut spending, despite the wishes of some Republicans. It should be noted, though, that the 2019 legislation, which included hefty spending increases for defense and domestic programs, did mandate $77 billion in "offsets" for those spending increases. According to Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., the $77 billion in offsets would be achieved in two ways: 1) "$15.5 billion from extending the expiration date of customs user fees" from May 26, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029, and 2) $61.7 billion from "extending mandatory spending sequester" (described by the Congressional Budget Office as "automatic spending cuts that occur through the withdrawal of funding for certain but not all government programs") from Sept. 30, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029. These administrative offsets were described by some as "cosmetic." By contrast, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's "Limit, Save, Grow Act" of 2023, as passed by the House, would require broad-based spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion, according to CBS News. As of this writing, Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden had said he would refuse to sign the act into law, and it was said to be "dead on arrival" in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

True

On April 26, 2023, the U.S. House of Representatives, led by Republicans, narrowly passed budget legislation raising the federal government's legal debt ceiling by $1.5 trillion on the condition that deep spending cuts would also be undertaken. Democrats balked at the spending-cuts requirement, demanding instead the passage of what they called a "clean bill" without preconditions to raise the debt ceiling before the deadline of June 1, when the government would default on its debts.Some Democrats, notably U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn., claimed that by demanding budget cuts in exchange for raising the debt ceiling, Republicans were "creating an economic crisis" and "threatening default" for partisan gain. No such demands were made during the administration of former President Donald Trump, Omar argued in a May tweet: "Republicans voted to raise the debt ceiling 3 times when Donald Trump was President, with no preconditions." What exactly is the debt ceiling? This is how the U.S. Department of the Treasury defines it (emphasis added):Since 1960, Congress has acted 78 separate times to permanently raise, temporarily extend, or revise the definition of the debt limit 49 times under Republican presidents and 29 times under Democratic presidents.It is true that during the Trump administration, legislation to raise the debt ceiling and avoid default was passed three times with varying degrees of bipartisan support, according to Bipartisan Policy Center:In 2017, 2018, and 2019, the debt limit was reset at $20.5 trillion, $22 trillion and $28.4 trillion, respectively. None of these bills, when signed into law, contained a precondition to cut spending, despite the wishes of some Republicans. It should be noted, though, that the 2019 legislation, which included hefty spending increases for defense and domestic programs, did mandate $77 billion in "offsets" for those spending increases. According to Rep. Lloyd Smucker, R-Pa., the $77 billion in offsets would be achieved in two ways: 1) "$15.5 billion from extending the expiration date of customs user fees" from May 26, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029, and 2) $61.7 billion from "extending mandatory spending sequester" (described by the Congressional Budget Office as "automatic spending cuts that occur through the withdrawal of funding for certain but not all government programs") from Sept. 30, 2027, to Sept. 30, 2029. These administrative offsets were described by some as "cosmetic." By contrast, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's "Limit, Save, Grow Act" of 2023, as passed by the House, would require broad-based spending cuts totaling $4.5 trillion, according to CBS News. As of this writing, Democratic U.S. President Joe Biden had said he would refuse to sign the act into law, and it was said to be "dead on arrival" in the Democratic-controlled Senate.

FMD_train_1480

Innovative Carburiser of Miracles

12/07/1999

Claim: A miraculous car that gets 200 miles to the gallon is sold by mistake, then reclaimed by the factory and is never seen again. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, 1999] A retiring General Motors employee, after many years of service, receives a car as a retirement gift (as well as a nice pension, etc.). He is given permission to select a car from the lot at the factory. He chooses a Chevrolet Caprice, a large luxury car. After receiving it, he is satisfied with his choice. After all, who wouldn't enjoy driving around in a roomy, comfortable car? After driving it for a while, he notices something quite odd: a car like this usually consumes a substantial amount of fuel, but the gas gauge hardly moves at all. After a few weeks, he becomes suspicious. Things like this don't happen. Being the company man he is, he returns it to the factory. Explaining this to the service technician must have caused some strange looks, but they took it in anyway. After he got his car back, he noticed it got the typical gas mileage of a comparable car. Could this car have had some secret "modifications" that allowed him to drive for weeks on the same tank of gas? Detroit's automakers have purportedly seized, or rather bought out, patents for items that improve gasoline mileage, like the 100 mpg carburetor. Maybe the R&D department at GM put this theory into practice, and this was an example. [Collected via e-mail, 1997] A couple journeys from Western Canada to Detroit to buy a new car and presumably save on shipping costs while enjoying a vacation in the States at the same time. Driving back to the prairies, they find, to their astonishment, that the gas gauge is not moving down to "empty," even though they've been driving for hours. Arriving home, thousands of miles away from Detroit, they have only refilled the tank once or twice. A few days after returning, the husband looks out at his driveway in the morning to find two mysterious men tinkering with his car (the hood is up). Running out, they race off; he checks under the hood, finds nothing amiss, and concludes it's just vandals or would-be thieves whom he was fortunate to apprehend before any damage was done. However, when they drive the car, they find their gas mileage is now normal. Variations: The miraculous car legend ends one of four ways: Mysterious men appear and tinker with the engine, rendering the car no different than any other. The car is reclaimed by the factory. If the owner afterwards gets the same car back (sometimes it's replaced outright with another vehicle), it now gets ordinary gas mileage. No-nonsense business types show up to make a fabulous offer for the car, which is accepted. The owner wakes up one morning to find the car vanished without a trace. Origins: The legend of the miracle high-mileage automobile has been around longer than most of our readers, with a version set in Philadelphia having appeared in a 1948 newspaper. Even at that time, the story proved unverifiable, with the article's writer identifying it as such and passing it along only as an example of a current rumor sweeping through the community. Since that early sighting of more than half a century ago, the legend has gone on to enthrall audience after audience, as each couple of years sees it pop up anew. Its origins are as strange as the story itself. Between 1928 and 1935, Charles Nelson Pogue, an inventor from Canada, applied for numerous patents for what he claimed was a new type of carburetor that supposedly completely vaporized gasoline before introducing it to the cylinders, thereby extracting a great deal more energy from the fuel. According to the Pogue patent description, fuel was introduced into the engine in this vaporous "dry" state rather than in the normal droplet-laden "wet" state, thus combining more readily with air and making it burn with far greater efficiency. Better combustion, combined with raising the engine's operating temperature from 160°F to 180°F, was said to be responsible for vastly improved fuel economy. So much for the techno-talk. The Pogue carburetor was touted as getting 200+ miles to the gallon. Glowing reports about this miracle of ingenuity making a 1,879-mile trip on 14.5 gallons appeared in the May 1936 issue of Canadian Automotive Trade magazine, reports which Pogue later denied. A manager of a Winnipeg auto dealership claimed he had driven a Pogue-equipped car 217 miles on a gallon of gasoline. A different dealer principal claimed to have driven 26 miles on a pint of fuel. The story snowballed onward from those breathless testimonials as one rumor quickly followed on the heels of another. Thieves were reputed to have broken into Pogue's shop and made off with three of his carburetors. There was talk of armed guards and wolfhounds guarding the shop and the now-famous inventor. Wealthy backers (from Winnipeg or Toronto, depending on whom you heard the story from) were rumored to be bankrolling Pogue, but the arrangements mysteriously fell through. Ford of Canada was said to have bought the invention outright. All in all, it was a very exciting time. Alas, one can get by on mere smoke and mirrors for only so long. Those with enough sense to not be deafened by the hyperbole were not long kept at bay with tales of wolfhounds, thieves, and mysterious briefcase-toting moneymen. They wanted to see the carburetor. That, of course, was never permitted. No one reputable was allowed to see the mechanical miracle in action, let alone have a chance to measure its results. After the initial excitement over Pogue's 1936 announcement had faded, more serious types began to openly doubt that the carburetor would work as described. In the December 1936 issue of Automotive Industries magazine, its engineering editor, P.M. Heldt, said of a sketch of the Pogue carburetor: "The sketch fails to show any features hitherto unknown in carburetor practice and absolutely gives no warrant for crediting the remarkable results claimed." Other journalists began to voice similar opinions. In response to calls to put up or shut up, Pogue's miracle carburetor was heard of no more. Faced with the choice of believing someone had made claims his invention couldn't later live up to or that a monied bad guy had bought up a technology to forever keep it off the market, at least some chose to believe the suppression theory. That the carburetor never made it to the public, they said, was proof enough of its existence. Those 1930s news stories breathlessly trumpeting Pogue's miracle of technology form the basis of the economical carburetor legend now before us. As gas prices fluctuate, our dependence on fossil fuels is driven home time and again. Who wouldn't long for a miracle of engineering that would free us from the tyranny of the gas pump? And thus the groundwork for belief is laid. As sometimes happens in the world of urban legends, the desire for something to be true transforms a rumor into certainty that this very thing is fact. Over the years, our legend about a 200 mpg car has bobbed to the surface in community after community, been debunked in numerous respected publications, and bobbed right back up in the wake of those debunkings. The need to believe in this wondrous technology and the evil car manufacturers who are deliberately withholding it from the market appears too strong to combat. A bit of rational thought should be all that's needed to lay this legend to rest. Why would the car manufacturers care at all about keeping such a technological advance away from consumers? Unlike the petroleum companies, they have no vested interest in how much fuel a car uses. An automaker's self-interest is best served by getting the newest irresistible technology to the consumer before his competitors do. If any one of them possessed the secret of the 200 mpg car, he would have rushed it into production, hoping to beat his competitors to the punch. Those who are tempted to believe the Evil Government is responsible for keeping this miracle out of our hands should reflect for a moment on the current state of world politics. The government of the United States would like nothing better than to throw off the yoke of dependence upon foreign oil. A miraculous carburetor would grant that freedom, allowing Americans to continue to enjoy current levels of use without the need to go hat in hand to OPEC or even those dastardly Canadians. The domestic supply would be more than enough. Though rarely is this tale told about anything other than a gas-miserly carburetor, this version describes a miraculous lightbulb: It was around 1920, shortly after he had married, when the old man originally purchased the light bulb from a small store in town. It appeared to be a normal light bulb. However, when after sixty years it was still going strong, he decided to write to the manufacturers and tell them of this remarkable phenomenon. By return, a reply came from the company indicating that they were very interested in the bulb and would like to send someone to see it. Eventually, one of the directors of the firm called and, instead of just showing interest, offered to buy it for $1,000. The old man, of course, refused, as the light bulb had given him good service. However, his curiosity was certainly aroused—why so much money for his light bulb? The director could provide no plausible explanation as to why they were willing to offer so much for the bulb, so the old man decided to explore this mystery further. With the help of a solicitor friend, he did a little investigating and discovered that in the 1920s, this particular light bulb manufacturer had bought and tested the patent for an everlasting bulb. Only a few of these bulbs were made, and the company, finding the invention worked, destroyed the bulbs and suppressed the idea—after all, it would have put them out of business. Unknown to the company, one of the lights had accidentally become mixed up with a batch of ordinary bulbs, and this was the light bulb that had lit the old man's kitchen for the past sixty years. (Sometimes lore collides with reality: A long-lived light bulb has been burning since 1901 and currently lights a fire station in Livermore, California.) light bulb Barbara "gasoline allied" Mikkelson Origins: The legend about the need to suppress the steam-driven carburetor that can produce 200 mpg to protect the oil industry surfaces in an episode of the TV series Spoils of Babylon ("The Foundling: The War Within; original air date 9 January 2014). Last updated: 26 June 2014 The Mexican Pet Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Vanishing Hitchhiker. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981. ISBN 0-393-95169-3 (pp. 175-178). The Vanishing Hitchhiker Dale, Rodney. The Tumour in the Whale. London: Duckworth, 1978. ISBN 0-7156-1314-6 (pp. 114-115). The Tumour in the Whale Dorson, Richard. American Folklore. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1959 (p. 253). American Folklore Ellis, William and Alan E. Mays. "Art Linkletter and the Contemporary Legend." FOAFTale News. June 1994 (pp. 1-10). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker. Rumor! New York: Penguin Books, 1984. ISBN 0-14-007036-2 (pp. 123-125). Rumor! Smith, Paul. The Book of Nasty Legends. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983. ISBN 0-00-636856-5 (pp. 9, 67). The Book of Nasty Legends Vance, Bill. "Was Winnipeg Inventor Victim of Oil Barons?" The Toronto Star. 17 April 1993 (p. H2). The Complete and Totally Book of Urban Legends Holt, David and Bill Mooney. Spiders in the Hairdo. Little Rock: August House, 1999. ISBN 0-87483-525-9 (pp. 85, 106). Spiders in the Hairdo The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 22). The Big Book of Urban Legends

False

(Sometimes lore collides with reality: A long-lived light bulb has been burning since 1901 and currently lights a fire station in Livermore, California.) Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Vanishing Hitchhiker. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981. ISBN 0-393-95169-3 (pp. 175-178). Dale, Rodney. The Tumour in the Whale. London: Duckworth, 1978. ISBN 0-7156-1314-6 (pp. 114-115). Dorson, Richard. American Folklore. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1959 (p. 253). Morgan, Hal and Kerry Tucker. Rumor! New York: Penguin Books, 1984. ISBN 0-14-007036-2 (pp. 123-125). Smith, Paul. The Book of Nasty Legends. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1983. ISBN 0-00-636856-5 (pp. 9, 67). Holt, David and Bill Mooney. Spiders in the Hairdo. Little Rock: August House, 1999. ISBN 0-87483-525-9 (pp. 85, 106). The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (p. 22).

FMD_train_836

Did Negro the Colombian Dog Pay for Cookies with Leaves?

07/18/2022

On July 17, 2022, the Facebook page The Sized posted a meme that claimed a dog in Colombia named Negro was known for paying for cookies with leaves. We received emails from our readers asking if this was true. We soon discovered that the story of the dog was real. The post has since been removed, but the meme lives on: it stated, "After watching customers pay money to buy cookies from a store, a dog in Colombia named Negro started bringing a leaf in his mouth and presenting it to the store attendant. The leaf-cookie exchange has become a daily occurrence for extremely good boy Negro, who is a 'paying' customer just like everybody else." This true story appeared to have first been posted on Twitter on April 16, 2018. The tweet garnered hundreds of thousands of engagements. The tweet reads, "NEGRO" y le gustan las galletas. Llega a la tienda del Colegio y como si fuera un estudiante más, pide una galleta. No es fiada ni regalada. Negro ve que los estudiantes llevan billetes y reciben algo a cambio. Él toma una hoja del suelo y se acerca a comprar su antojito. pic.twitter.com/Hkf5kVsCKR pic.twitter.com/Hkf5kVsCKR Gloria? (@AyPlobnrg) April 16, 2018. The tweet translates to, "He is 'NEGRO' and he likes cookies. He arrives at the school store and as if he were just another student, he asks for a cookie. It is not trusted or given away. Negro sees that the students carry bills and receive something in return. He picks up a leaf from the ground and goes to buy his snack." According to The Dodo, the store referenced in the meme was a small shop on the campus of Institución Educativa Técnico Diversificado de Monterrey, located in Monterrey, Colombia. Apparently, this tale of man's best friend was once subjected to a bit of misinformation. The La FM Facebook page previously falsely claimed that the story took place in Mexico. Commenters called out La FM for the mistake. This picture of the school was posted on its Facebook page. The article from The Dodo stated that, as of 2018, Negro the dog was serving as a "guardian of sorts," watching over the children's daily activities. He had been cared for by the school's faculty since around 2013. According to the story, one day Negro decided to try something he witnessed the students doing at the shop: early in his tenure at the school, he became aware of the little store on campus where students gathered to buy things during their breaks; sometimes they would buy him cookies sold there. This, evidently, is where the dog first learned about commerce and decided to try it out himself. "He would go to the store and watch the children give money and receive something in exchange," teacher Angela Garcia Bernal told The Dodo. "Then one day, spontaneously, he appeared with a leaf in his mouth, wagging his tail and letting it be known that he wanted a cookie." The Dodo added that, "Staff have made sure he's only getting treats safe for dogs to eat, and they do limit his purchases to just a couple a day (to stave off inflation in both the leafy currency and his waistline)." We didn't find any other pictures of Negro on the school's Facebook page. His most recent photographs were posted in 2018. Note: We reached out to Angela Garcia Bernal, who was previously interviewed by The Dodo. However, we were unlikely to receive a response any time soon, as our message went to her message requests. Messenger does not issue notifications for message requests from unknown senders. Institución Educativa Técnico Diversificado de Monterrey. https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100057287746349. Messenger, Stephen. "Dog Always Brings A Leaf To 'Buy' Himself Treats At The Store." The Dodo, 25 Apr. 2018, https://www.thedodo.com/close-to-home/dog-buys-treats-using-leaf.

True

On July 17, 2022, the Facebook page The Sized posteda meme that claimed a dog in Colombia named Negro was known for paying for cookies with leaves. We received mail from our readers that asked if this was true. We soon found that the story of the dog was real.The meme said, "After watching customers pay money to buy cookies from a store, a dog in Colombia named Negro started bringing a leaf in his mouth and presenting it to the store attendant. The leaf-cookie exchange has become a daily occurrence for extremely good boy Negro, who is a 'paying' customer just like everybody else."This true story appeared to have first been posted on Twitter on April 16, 2018. The tweet was liked and shared for a total of hundreds of thousands of engagements.l es "NEGRO" y le gustan las galletas. Llega a la tienda del Colegio y como si fuera un estudiante ms, pide una galleta. No es fiada ni regalada. Negro ve qe los estudiantes llevan billetes y reciben algo a cambio. l toma una hoja del suelo y se acerca a comprar su antojito. pic.twitter.com/Hkf5kVsCKR Gloria? (@AyPlobnrg) April 16, 2018According to The Dodo, the store referenced in the meme was a small shop on the campus of Institucin Educativa Tcnico Diversificado de Monterrey, which is located in Monterrey, Colombia.Apparently, this tale of man's best friend was once subjected to a bit of misinformation. The La FM Facebook page previously falsely claimed that the story took place in Mexico. Commenters called out La FM for the mistake.

FMD_train_1582

What silently occurred on January 1, 2015?

08/26/2014

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

False

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

FMD_train_1235

Does Chick-fil-A Pay a $17 Starting Wage?

09/17/2019

A photograph supposedly showing a help-wanted bulletin featuring a starting wage of $16.50 for a position at a Chick-fil-A restaurant was widely circulated on Facebook in August 2019: Facebook This single photograph of this lone sign led some viewers to believe that a starting wage of $16.50 was available at all Chick-fil-A locations. But that isn't the case. For starters, the sign notes that this wage is "based on position and availability." In other words, this wage isn't available to all new hires. Furthermore, Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned, meaning wages vary depending on location. While some Chick-fil-A franchises may offer similar wages to those featured on this sign, the wage is not a company-wide policy. This photograph was taken at a Chick-Fil-A in Pleasanton, California. In July 2019, this Chick-fil-A location posted a similar flyer to their Facebook page: This isn't the only Chick-fil-A restaurant that is offering close to $17 an hour. Another Chick-fil-A restaurant in Sacramento, California, raised its starting wage to $17 hour. raised its starting wage Eric Mason, owner of the Sacramento Chick-fil-A, told a television station in June 2019 that he was hoping to attract "hospitality professionals" with his new wage offer. television station According to a CBS News report: report The owner of a Chick-fil-A location in Sacramento, California, calls it a "living wage." In Eric Mason's view, that would be $17 or $18 an hour, which is what he vows he'll be paying his workers, starting Monday, June 4. The rate represents a sizable increase for employees now making $12 to $13 an hour. "As the owner, I'm looking at it big-picture and long-term," Mason told a local news station. "What that does for the business is provide consistency, someone that has relationships with our guests, and it's going to be building a long-term culture." While at least two Chick-fil-A restaurants are truly offering starting wages close to $17 an hour, this pay is not available at all Chick-fil-A locations. According to Payscale, a company that surveys employees and employers for information about wages, the average hourly rate for a Chick-fil-A employee is about $10 an hour. Payscale A spokesperson for the company told us that because Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned, franchise owners set their own wages: Chick-fil-A restaurants are individually owned and operated, so wage decisions are made at the local level. With that said, Chick-fil-A strives to create a compelling employment value proposition including competitive wages, leadership development opportunities and scholarships. In fact, since 1973, Chick-fil-A has helped 53,000 Team Members attend college through a total investment of $75 million in scholarships. While the wage mentioned on the above-displayed sign does not apply to all Chick-fil-A locations or positions, the company truly does offer "scholarship opportunities." The company writes on its website: website We offer college scholarship opportunities and tuition discounts Chick-fil-A, Inc. recognizes and appreciates the tremendous talent and capabilities of Team Members working at their local Chick-fil-A restaurants. To help invest in their futures, Chick-fil-A restaurant Team Members can apply for college scholarships, as well as receive tuition discounts at dozens of universities across the U.S. Wang, Frances. "Sacramento Chick-Fil-A Hiring 'Hospitality Professionals' for $17 an Hour." ABC 10. 26 March 2018. Gibson, Kate. "Chick-fil-A Store Owner Raises Minimum Wage to $17 an Hour 'Living Wage.'" CBS News. 7 June 2019. Updated [18 September 2019]: Added statement from Chick-fil-A and information about the origins of the photograph.

False

A photograph supposedly showing a help-wanted bulletin featuring a starting wage of $16.50 for a position at a Chick-fil-A restaurant was widely circulated on Facebook in August 2019:This single photograph of this lone sign led some viewers to believe that a starting wage of $16.50 was available at all Chick-fil-A locations. But that isn't the case.This isn't the only Chick-fil-A restaurant that is offering close to $17 an hour. Another Chick-fil-A restaurant in Sacramento, California, raised its starting wage to $17 hour.Eric Mason, owner of the Sacramento Chick-fil-A, told a television station in June 2019 that he was hoping to attract "hospitality professionals" with his new wage offer.According to a CBS News report:While at least two Chick-fil-A restaurants are truly offering starting wages close to $17 an hour, this pay is not available at all Chick-fil-A locations. According to Payscale, a company that surveys employees and employers for information about wages, the average hourly rate for a Chick-fil-A employee is about $10 an hour. The company writes on its website:

FMD_train_998

Austin leads in Texas in startups, venture capital, and patents.

05/13/2016

Austins typically soft-spoken mayor recently popped a big-as-Texas boast. Theres a reason Austin is number one in Texas in startups and venture capital and patents, Steve Adler said. Adler, speaking outside City Hall, went on: Theres a reason that tech and transportation companies come to Austin to roll out their new initiatives. And thats because Austin is where good ideas become real. Claiming that Austin is anti-innovation has no basis in fact. Hear hear! Still, we wondered about the rankings Adler declared whilerevealing his plansto vote against a ballot proposition, later rejected by voters, affecting background checks of drivers for ride-hailing services. Startups Adler's office didn't immediately offer his backup. Meantime, our online search for information on startups led us to a June 2015 report from the Kansas City-based Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation stating that in the last year, the Austin metropolitan area ranked No. 1 nationally for the areas pace launching startups, which the foundation defined as firms less than one-year old employing at least one person besides the owner. Asked what last year means in the report, foundation researcher E.J. Reedy advised by phone the conclusion tied to data from 2012 and 2014. According to the foundation,which saysit focuses on improving lives through education and entrepreneurship, the nations top 10 metropolitan areas for startup activity among the 40 most-populous metropolitan areas were:Austin;Miami, Fla.;San Jose, Calif.;Los Angeles;Denver;San Francisco;New York;Houston;San Diego; andSan Antonio. Per Adlers Texas point, the Austin area had 180.8 startups per 100,000 residents, the foundation says, outpacing theDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area(142.5 startups per 100,000 residents),Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown(136.9 startups per 100,000 residents) and the San Antonio-New Braunfels area (111.9 startups per 100,000 residents). By email, foundation spokeswoman Lacey Graverson told us the presented concentrations drew on the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statisticsto tally startups matched with population data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Reedy agreed by phone that among the big Texas cities, the Austin area had the greatest concentration of startups. But generally, Reedy indicated, counts of startups can vary, partly because theres no single accepted definition of startups, which inherently come and go at a rapid pace. The government has official measures, Reedy added, but each one captures an aspect -- for instance new employer businesses or newly self-employed individuals. Also, Reedy said, observers differ over what merits counting. Some stress large firms that employ many, he said, others urge a fix on technology firms and others say that any count should recognize small businesses (including one-person endeavors) that grow by an employee or two a year. A foundation chart presenting Austins startup density since the late 1970s indicates the area has had peppier times--including in 2008 (201.7 startups per 100,000 residents), 2006 (214.9), 1999 (217.9) and, the charts high point, 1981 (499.5), which was up a huge measure from 1980 (31.4): SOURCE:Web page,Startup Activity, Austin Area, 2015,Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, June 4, 2015 (viewed May 5, 2016) Venture capital Next, we turned to exploring Austins ranking for venture capital, which describes money invested in a business or project at considerable risk. A January 2016Austin American-Statesmannews story, citing a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, said Austin entities in 2015 were by far the states largest recipients of venture capital, with $740 million; Dallas firms placed second, fielding $214.4 million, ahead of Houston outfits, at $160 million. The Austin-connected investments added up to the largest annual dollar figure for Austin since 2001, the newspaper said, when 127 companies received $1.14 billion. By email, mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford pointed out another account of the survey results; a Silicon Hills Newsstorysaid the 99 Austin deals in 2015, mostly to develop software, were down from 114 in 2014. Also, the story said, Austins number one deal for the latest year was Civitas Learning, attracting $60 million in venture capital, followed by Aeglea Biotherapeautics with $44 million, Mirna Therapeutics with $41.8 million and SpareFoot with $30 million, the story said. Nationally in 2015, theStatesmanstory said, venture capital investments rose to $58.8 billion, up 22 percent from the year before. Silicon Valley, as usual, took in the most money, with the San Jose area receiving $27.3 billion in 1,333 deals, the story said. Patents Stanford said Adler made his claim about Austin leading Texas in patents based on a May 2010Forbes.com articleby Andy Greenberg stating that Austin and neighboring Round Rock had produced an impressive average 1.7 patents for every thousand residents over the last 12 months, the second-most per-capita of any metro area in the country, he wrote. Greenberg elaborated: Austins culture of innovation may be boosted by well-known tech credentials like the South by Southwest (SXSW) Web startup and music festival held annually in March, as well as the nearby headquarters of hardware industry giants Dell and Freescale Semiconductor. But they also have two secret weapons in the innovation race: the University of Texass Cockrell School of Engineering, and IBMs Austin research lab. IBM produces more patents than any other company in the world, and for the last seven years Austin has produced more of those patents than any other IBM office. In total the lab produced 880 patents in 2009. Thats just 30 less than all of Cisco, and 300 more than Sun Microsystems, Boeing, AT&T or Toyota. We were unable to confirm or duplicate Greenbergs Austin conclusion. To get our own sense of how Texas cities stand in patents originated, we reached out to the Dallas-basedregional officeof the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. By email, spokesman Ryan Elliott pointed outpatent counts posted by the officeindicating that in 2012-13 and from 2000 through 2013, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area generated more patents than the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos area. However, the regions raw counts were close, according to the agency, while the Austin area was responsible for more patents than any other Texas area from 2009, 2010 and 2011 through 2013, by our reckoning. Snapshot: The Austin area was responsible for 12,387 patents from 2009 through 2013, according to the office, with the Dallas area accounting for 11,546 patents -- which we took to mean that the less populous Austin area ran well ahead of the Dallas area in patents per 1,000 residents. Our search for relevant analyses led to a2013 reportby the Brookings Institution finding that from 1980 to 2012, most U.S. patents--63 percent--had been developed by people living in just 20 metro areas home to 34 percent of the U.S. population. Reflecting the advantages of large metropolitan economies, the report said, 92 percent of U.S. patents are concentrated in just 100 metro areas, with 59 percent of the population. For patents applied for from 2007 to 2011, the metro areas with the highest number per capita are San Jose; Burlington, VT; Rochester, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Boulder, CO. The authors wrote: From 1980 to 2011, a few large metros notably changed their share of U.S patents. At the top, San Jose moved up from ninth to first, and San Francisco moved from seventh to fourth, moving ahead of Chicago, Philadelphia, Detroit, and Boston. Seattle and San Diego moved up 15 and nine places, respectively, to become seventh and eighth. Meanwhile, Austin and Raleigh moved up 41 and 55 places, respectively, to become 11th and 20th. Cleveland fell 10 slots from 13th to 23rd, while Philadelphia fell from fourth to 13th. Not only did Austin surge in total patents, it lately achieved a high ranking in per-capita patents. From 2007 through 2011, a chart in the report indicates, the Austin metro area had 1,503 patents per million residents, tops in Texas and placing the area fourth nationally among high-patent areas behind San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara, California (5,066 patents per million residents); Poughkeepsie-Newburgh-Middletown, New York (1,829); and San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont (1,638). In Texas, the Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown metro area had 379 patents per million residents and the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area had 310 per million, according to Brookings. Next, we heard back from Mark Muro of Brookings who shared a chart that he said was based on a different data source -- global PCT patents,meaningthe international patent system rather than the U.S. PTO. By that metric, the chart suggests that from 2008 through 2012, the Houston metropolitan area generated more cutting-edge technology patents per 1,000 residents (1,598) than the Austin area (1,294). An excerpt: SOURCE:Chart ranking 100 U.S. Core Based Statistical Areas in tech patents invented per 1,000 population, 2008-2012 (received by email from Mark Muro, senior fellow and policy director, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings, May 5, 2016) Regardless of those results, Muro and a Brookings colleague, Nick Marchio, suggested we hew to the U.S. patent office counts as the best general way of assessing the mayors claim. Marchio even volunteered toadjust the patent offices raw counts for the population of each metropolitan area. Result: In 2013, the latest year of tabulated patents, the Austin area ranked No. 11 nationally with 1.55 patents per 1,000 residents, far outpacing the No. 2 Texas metro, Dallas, at 51st with 0.44 patents per 1,000 residents. Also, from 2009 through 2013, the Austin area ranked 10th nationally with 6.95 patents per 1,000 residents, far ahead of the No. 2 Texas metro, in this case the Houston area, which landed 52nd nationally with 1.81 patents per 1,000 residents. Our ruling Adler said: Austin is number one in Texas in startups, venture capital and patents. Houston has been running ahead in international technology patents, it looks to us, but Austin lately leads the state in overall patents, startups and venture capital. We rate the claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

True

Still, we wondered about the rankings Adler declared whilerevealing his plansto vote against a ballot proposition, later rejected by voters, affecting background checks of drivers for ride-hailing services.According to the foundation,which saysit focuses on improving lives through education and entrepreneurship, the nations top 10 metropolitan areas for startup activity among the 40 most-populous metropolitan areas were:Austin;Miami, Fla.;San Jose, Calif.;Los Angeles;Denver;San Francisco;New York;Houston;San Diego; andSan Antonio.Per Adlers Texas point, the Austin area had 180.8 startups per 100,000 residents, the foundation says, outpacing theDallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area(142.5 startups per 100,000 residents),Houston-Sugar Land-Baytown(136.9 startups per 100,000 residents) and the San Antonio-New Braunfels area (111.9 startups per 100,000 residents). By email, foundation spokeswoman Lacey Graverson told us the presented concentrations drew on the U.S. Census BureausBusiness Dynamics Statisticsto tally startups matched with population data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis.SOURCE:Web page,Startup Activity, Austin Area, 2015,Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation, June 4, 2015 (viewed May 5, 2016)Next, we turned to exploring Austins ranking for venture capital, which describes money invested in a business or project at considerable risk. A January 2016Austin American-Statesmannews story, citing a survey by PricewaterhouseCoopers and the National Venture Capital Association, said Austin entities in 2015 were by far the states largest recipients of venture capital, with $740 million; Dallas firms placed second, fielding $214.4 million, ahead of Houston outfits, at $160 million.By email, mayoral spokesman Jason Stanford pointed out another account of the survey results; a Silicon Hills Newsstorysaid the 99 Austin deals in 2015, mostly to develop software, were down from 114 in 2014. Also, the story said, Austins number one deal for the latest year was Civitas Learning, attracting $60 million in venture capital, followed by Aeglea Biotherapeautics with $44 million, Mirna Therapeutics with $41.8 million and SpareFoot with $30 million, the story said.Stanford said Adler made his claim about Austin leading Texas in patents based on a May 2010Forbes.com articleby Andy Greenberg stating that Austin and neighboring Round Rock had produced an impressive average 1.7 patents for every thousand residents over the last 12 months, the second-most per-capita of any metro area in the country, he wrote.To get our own sense of how Texas cities stand in patents originated, we reached out to the Dallas-basedregional officeof the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. By email, spokesman Ryan Elliott pointed outpatent counts posted by the officeindicating that in 2012-13 and from 2000 through 2013, the Dallas-Fort Worth-Arlington area generated more patents than the Austin-Round Rock-San Marcos area.Our search for relevant analyses led to a2013 reportby the Brookings Institution finding that from 1980 to 2012, most U.S. patents--63 percent--had been developed by people living in just 20 metro areas home to 34 percent of the U.S. population. Reflecting the advantages of large metropolitan economies, the report said, 92 percent of U.S. patents are concentrated in just 100 metro areas, with 59 percent of the population. For patents applied for from 2007 to 2011, the metro areas with the highest number per capita are San Jose; Burlington, VT; Rochester, MN; Corvallis, OR; and Boulder, CO.Next, we heard back from Mark Muro of Brookings who shared a chart that he said was based on a different data source -- global PCT patents,meaningthe international patent system rather than the U.S. PTO. By that metric, the chart suggests that from 2008 through 2012, the Houston metropolitan area generated more cutting-edge technology patents per 1,000 residents (1,598) than the Austin area (1,294).Marchio even volunteered toadjust the patent offices raw counts for the population of each metropolitan area. Result: In 2013, the latest year of tabulated patents, the Austin area ranked No. 11 nationally with 1.55 patents per 1,000 residents, far outpacing the No. 2 Texas metro, Dallas, at 51st with 0.44 patents per 1,000 residents. Also, from 2009 through 2013, the Austin area ranked 10th nationally with 6.95 patents per 1,000 residents, far ahead of the No. 2 Texas metro, in this case the Houston area, which landed 52nd nationally with 1.81 patents per 1,000 residents.TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_184

Michelle Obama volunteered at a soup kitchen.

06/14/2009

Claim: Photograph shows Michelle Obama serving a government funded soup kitchen meal to a person with an expensive cell phone. REAL PHOTOGRAPH; INACCURATE DESCRIPTION Examples: [Collected via e-mail, June 2009] Recently Michelle Obama went to serve food to the homeless at a government funded soup kitchen. Cost of a bowl of soup at homeless shelter: $0.00 dollars Having Michelle Obama Serve you your soup: $0.00 dollars Snapping a picture of a homeless person who is receiving a government funded meal while taking a picture of the first lady using his $500 Black Berry cell phone and $100.00 per month cellular service: Priceless Origins: The above-displayed photograph is genuine, a snapshot taken on an occasion in March 2009 when Michelle Obama spent some time serving lunch to men and women at Miriam's Kitchen, a social service agency in Washington D.C., as part of the First Lady's effort to "spotlight local organizations, connect with the city and help those in need amid the economic crisis." However, all the assumptions and implications of the text accompanying this picture are incorrect or unsubstantiated. To wit: The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. Miriam's Kitchen A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service." Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program. So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview: BlackBerry Pearl affordable Lifeline interview Q: Since the First Lady's visit, both your guests and your food have been the subject of some criticism within the blogosphere. For example, some critics noted thatone of your guests had a cell phone and suggested that it was inappropriate to serve free food to someone who could afford a cell phone. A: I suspect some people don't understand how inexpensive cell phones are, or how critical they are to this population. These days, you can purchase a cell phone at 7-11 for $10, then pay for minutes as you go. Our clients have a very fragile safety net. Many of them don't have shelter and are extremely vulnerable. For them, cell phones could literally be a lifeline. If they're looking for a job, the cell phone would also be incredibly important can you even imagine trying to apply for a job without a phone number? Cell phones simply aren't luxuries anymore. If a guest can scrape together some money to purchase a cell phone, I think that's wonderful. The assumption that a truly homeless person wouldn't have (or couldn't afford) a cell phone is also a mistaken one. As Scott Schenkelberg noted, the ranks of the homeless served by organizations such as Miriam's Kitchen include not just the long-term, chronically homeless, but also the "newly homeless": those who had recently been getting by economically until a sudden job loss or other reversal left them with nowhere to go: Until recently, we served mostly the chronically homeless, people who had fallen out of the economy long ago. More recently, we've been seeing more new faces, people who just fell into homelessness or other hard times. These people are generally high-functioning individuals who were hurt by the poor economy. It's very troubling to see previously self-sufficient people coming to Miriam's Kitchen in such high numbers. Last updated: 16 June 2009 Sweet, Lynn. "Can Michelle Influence what We Eat, Too?" Chicago Sun-Times. 6 March 2009 (p. C10). Associated Press. "First Lady Puts Service on the Menu." The Australian. 7 March 2009.

True

The photograph does not depict anyone "receiving a government funded meal": Miriam's Kitchen is a privately funded organization with the goal of "providing individualized services that address the causes andconsequences of homelessness in an atmosphere of dignity and respect"; it is not government run or taxpayer funded. A cell phone capable of capturing images (even a BlackBerry Pearl) is not necessarily a "$500 phone" with a "$100 per month cellular service." Many much more affordable options are available, including cellular providers who give free phones to low-income customers under the Lifeline assistance program. So a homeless person might very well carry a cell phone, as Scott Schenkelberg, the Executive Director of Miriam's Kitchen, observed when questioned about this photograph during an interview:

FMD_train_1756

Most Valuable Brand Names

08/01/2001

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

True

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

FMD_train_241

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

08/03/2018

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

False

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

FMD_train_541

Is USPS Purposefully Slowing Mail To Help Reelect Trump?

08/06/2020

As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term. mail-in voting In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged: viral tweet My mailman just confirmed they have all officially been told to "SLOW THE MAIL DOWN," per trump's Postmaster General...He says that there is backed up mail ALL OVER THE FLOOR. He's never seen anything like it. It has ALREADY begun. But as long as we keep each other informed, we can beat their dirty tricks with INFORMATION. The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines. state laws What follows is an examination of federal documents obtained by Snopes including letters by members of Congress, campaign finance reports, and internal memos to Postal Service employees as well as interviews with postal union representatives and a Postal Service spokesperson, to determine the legitimacy of those questions. DeJoy could not be reached for an interview for this report. Note: Snopes not only investigated DeJoy's relationship to Trump, but his financial stake in companies that compete with the Postal Service to evaluate if, or to what extent, his past investments provided any evidence of a plan to undermine the Postal Service's longstanding mission: to provide mail service to every American, no matter their address or income. Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC). Federal Elections Commission It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive. 2005 interview The Apprentice "I'd be fired," DeJoy said, if he was a contestant. Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house. top donors Greensboro house. Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website. foundation website In addition to his contributions to Trump's political campaigns specifically, DeJoy has given hundreds of thousands of dollars to Republican causes or campaigns over decades, the FEC records show. The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars since the early days of his presidency. what it described Robert Duncan John Barger Ron Bloom Roman Martinez IV Donald Moak William Zollars DeJoy, who was in charge of fundraising for the Republican National Convention (RNC) in Charlotte when the board made its announcement, made the following donations since the start of 2020, according to filings from the FEC: National Republican Congressional Committee. National Republican Congressional Committee Facebook In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president. home The answer to this question is less clear. In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below) took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service. another layer allegedly That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service. critics Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency. a joke delivery boy eventually privatizing the agency Meanwhile, others fear dismantling the federally-mandated mail service would disproportionately affect people who live in rural areas, where private companies such as FedEx and UPS either charge higher rates or do no shipments at all. At the same time, the Postal Service which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours. congressional mandate coronavirus pandemic scale back hours For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year or the end of September without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.) April 9, 2020 announced her retirement The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money. economic relief package Steven Mnuchin The Washington Post By that time, Congressional leaders and Trump were battling yet again over another emergency relief package; Democrats proposed a $25 billion boost for the Postal Service but then lowered that amount to $10 billion during talks with Republicans. On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it. told Which brings us to DeJoy's assets, and the above-mentioned claim that he had "$70 million invested in companies that compete with USPS." For the basis of this analysis, we considered private companies that provide shipping or distribution services, such as DHL, the FedEx Corporation, and United Parcel Service, Inc. (UPS), business competitors with the post office. For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services. XPO Logistics DHL FedEx UPS J.B. Hunt Transport Services Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc. letter She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read: nomination Office of Government Ethics As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000. The Washington Post reported On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests. letter By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position. told journalists In sum, reports proved the DeJoy family at one point had millions of dollars in assets in companies that compete or contract with the Postal Service, which lend credibility to the viral assertion. But the exact amount of such investments was unclear, and as of this writing, it was unknown if or to what extent the couple had divested any of the financial holdings. Not exactly but there is some truth to the claim. Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics. video Then, in mid-July, he issued several memos to employees, including a "New [Postmaster General's] expectations and plan." Those messages to all managers, clerks, and carriers nationwide appeared to be the source of the claim, and detailed changes to how and when the Postal Agency would deliver mail. A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example: American Postal Workers Union The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses. $200 million in added expenses The shifts are simple, but they will be challenging, as we seek to change our culture and move away from past practices previously used. But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes contradicting previous rules for deliveries and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said: contradicting One aspect of these changes that may be difficult for employees is that temporarily we may see mail left behind or mail on the workroom floor or docks [in Processing and Distribution Centers], which is not typical. We will address root causes of these delays and adjust the very next day. Any mail left behind must be properly reported, and employees should ensure this action is taken with integrity and accuracy. As we adjust to the ongoing pivot, which will have a number of phases, we know that operations will begin to run more efficiently and that delayed mail volumes will soon shrink significantly. We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day. July 2020 The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said: said public statement Given our current situation, it is critical that the Postal Service take a fresh look at our operations and make necessary adjustments. We are highly focused on our public service mission to provide prompt, reliable, and efficient service to every person and business in this country, and to remain a part of the nations critical infrastructure. David Partenheimer, manager of media relations for the Postal Service, told Snopes that the postmaster general was not doing any media interviews regarding the initiatives, nor about the underlying claims of this report. In a roughly 760-word email to us, however, Partenheimer reemphasized what the agency viewed as the need for the adjustments, and said: "We acknowledge that temporary service impacts can occur as we redouble our efforts to conform to the current operating plans, but any such impacts will be monitored and temporary ... and corrected as appropriate." Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted. Mark Dimondstein employees Philadelphia Inquirer "When you ... say this is what you have to do as workers, then that's what we have to do [the change] runs counter to everything that the Postal Service is about, which is we treat the mail as our own; we get it to the customer as quickly as we can," Dimondstein said. "They've never seen mail backed up like this it's not being moved." That meant, while DeJoy had not told carriers to "slow the mail down" verbatim, he initiated changes to how and when carriers go about doing their job that the Postal Agency said would cause temporary mail delays. However, it would be inaccurate to assume all slow deliveries under DeJoy's leadership were a result of the July 2020 directives specifically, when they could also be linked to reduced hours for some post offices or other circumstances. Roughly three months before the 2020 presidential election, voting rights groups and outspoken critics to the president believed the new directives by DeJoy occurred at a convenient time for Trump: when a record number of Americans were preparing to vote by mail and avoid potential exposure to the COVID-19 coronavirus by casting ballots at in-person polling places. Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said: Rep. Carolyn Maloney "While these changes [to mail service] in a normal year would be drastic, in a presidential election year when many states are relying heavily on absentee mail-in ballots, increases in mail delivery timing would impair the ability of ballots to be received and counted in a timely manner an unacceptable outcome for a free and fair election." We asked Dimondstein, APWU president, whether he believed the July directives by Postal Service leadership were somehow linked to a plan to cause mail service chaos before the November election and help Trump win reelection. He said: What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined... written record This is a fact: [DeJoy is] what's considered a mega-donor of the Trump administration and the Republican party... Anything that undermines the Postal Service' [service to customers] ... has us concerned that it could be linked back to those who have an agenda to eliminate [the Postal Service]. But I can't sit here and tell you that that's a fact. Partenheimer said any notion that DeJoy made decisions for the Postal Service under directions from Trump (which include claims that he issued the July 2020 changes that resulted in delays to help Trump's re-election campaign) were "wholly misplaced and off-base." He said the Postal Service, typically an apolitical agency, remains committed to "fulfilling our role in the electoral process" in places where politicians allow voters to cast ballots by mail and "to delivering Election Mail in a timely manner consistent with our operational standards." He elaborated: "[Despite] any assertions to the contrary, we are not slowing down Election Mail or any other mail. Instead, we continue to employ a robust and proven process to ensure proper handling of all Election Mail consistent with our standards." Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said. news media Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read: statement To avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail, I am suspending these initiatives until after the election is concluded. I want to assure all Americans of the following: In addition, effective Oct. 1, we will engage standby resources in all areas of our operations, including transportation, to satisfy any unforeseen demand. In sum, it was accurate to state that DeJoy, a political ally to Trump, ordered Postal Service workers to leave late-arriving mail at distribution centers for delivery the following day and eliminate extra trips in July 2020 a change the Postal Service was expecting to cause temporary mail delays although no verifiable evidence proved those directives were part of a deliberate scheme to disenfranchise voters in the November 2020 election. Additionally, there was no proof to show the changes aimed to help Trump win reelection. For those reasons, we rate this claim "Unproven." Ye Hee Lee, Michelle and Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Backlog Sparks Worries That Ballot Delivery Could Be Delayed In November". The Washington Post. 30 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War". NPR. 29 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "Pending Postal Service Changes Could Delay Mail And Deliveries, Advocates War". NPR. 29 July 2020. USPS Contributor. "What Is The History Behind The Unofficial USPS Motto?" Postal Posts. 11 September 2015. USPS. "Postmaster General Statement On Operational Excellence And Financial Stability". 27 July 2020. Office of Inspector General. "U.S. Postal Service's Processing Network Optimization And Service Impacts". USPS. 16 June 2020. Dawsey, Josh, et. al. "Top Republican Fundraiser And Trump Ally Named Postmaster General, Giving President New Influence Over Postal Service". The Washington Post. 6 May 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Postal Service Memos Detail 'Difficult' Changes, Including Slower Mail Delivery". The Washington Post. 14 July 2020. Naylor, Brian. "New Postmaster General Is Top GOP Fundraiser". NPR. 7 May 2020. Hummel, Marta. "New Breed CEO No One's 'Apprentice' Louis DeJoy Is A Big Supporter Of George W. Bush But Says The Clinton Era Was His Most Profitable". News & Record. 7 January 2005. Heckman, Jory. "USPS Board Names Logistics Executive As New Postmaster General". Federal News Network. 6 May 2020. Gordon, Aaron. "USPS Plans To Slash Hours At Many Post Offices, Hoping To Save A Buck". Vice. 29 July 2020. Cohen, Rachel. "USPS Workers Concerned New Policies Will Pave The Way To Privatization". The Intercept. 29 July 2020. Derysh, Igor. "With Trump Donor In Charge, Postal Service May Shut Locations And Cut Service Before Election Day". Salon. 31 July 2020. Rushing, Ellie. "Mail Delays Are Frustrating Philly Residents, And A Short-Staffed Postal Service Is Struggling To Keep Up". The Philadelphia Inquirer. 2 August 2020. Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney. "Maloney, King Lead Bipartisan NY Delegation Call For Immediate Help For The Postal Service". 28 April 2020. House Committee On Oversight And Reform. "Senior Democrats Request Information On Postal Service's Operational Changes". 20 July 2020. Bogage, Jacob. "Trump Ally Takes Over Crisis-Ridden Postal Service As Top Senate Democrat Demands Inquiry On Hiring". The Washington Post. 15 June 2020. Murphy, Brian. "NC Businessman, A Big-Time GOP Donor, Is Tapped To Lead US Postal Service". The News & Observer. 7 May 2020. Shear, Michael. "Mail Delays Fuel Concern Trump Is Undercutting Postal Service Ahead Of Voting". The New York Times. 1 August 2020. Sargent, Greg. "Trump Just Told Us How Mail Delays Could Help Him Corrupt The Election". The Washington Post. 31 July 2020. Reichmann, Deb, and Izaguirre, Anthony. "Trump Admits He's Blocking Postal Cash To Stop Mail-In Votes." Associated Press. 14 August 2020. USPS. "Postmaster General Louis DeJoy Statement." 18 August 2020. This report was updated to include an interview by Trump with Fox Business Network on Aug. 13, 2020, where he acknowledged that he was intentionally blocking Postal Service funding in an attempt to make it harder for the agency to process mail-in ballots in the November presidential election. This report was updated to include a statement by DeJoy on Aug. 18, 2020, in which he announced the suspension of certain initiatives "to avoid even the appearance of any impact on election mail."

NEI

As U.S. President Donald Trump accelerated unsubstantiated attacks on the legitimacy of mail-in voting during the summer of 2020, numerous Snopes readers asked us to investigate whether the leader of the U.S. Postal Service was carrying out a nefarious scheme to help Trump win another presidential term.In late July and early August, various rumors surfaced regarding Louis DeJoy, a North Carolina businessman whom the Postal Service's governing board selected to run the agency in May 2020. For example, a viral tweet thread alleged:The claim's underlying notions were these: DeJoy was a political ally to the Republican president, and the new postmaster general had used his new authority to order Postal Service carriers and clerks to slow deliveries to help Trump win the 2020 November election. A backlog of ballots in the weeks or days before Election Day, critics of the president worried, could lead to votes going uncounted or deemed invalid due to state laws governing mail-in election deadlines.Yes. DeJoy, who lives in Greensboro, donated more than $1.2 million to the Trump campaign between August 2016 and February 2020, according to campaign finance reports compiled by the Federal Elections Commission (FEC).It's unclear when or how DeJoy developed a relationship with Trump, and why he decided to support the billionaire's political pursuits. In a 2005 interview with Greensboro's local newspaper, DeJoy then-CEO of New Breed Logistics, a distribution and warehousing company appeared less supportive of Trump, saying his self-important attitude on the reality-TV show "The Apprentice" was destructive.Nonetheless, by early 2017, DeJoy was among his state's top donors to Trump (see below for The Charlotte Observer's list that ranks DeJoy at No. 3 with a total contribution of $111,000). And by October of that year, DeJoy had become close enough to the president to host him and other donors for fundraiser at his Greensboro house.Also, by that time, DeJoy's wife, Aldona Wos, had been appointed by the president to serve as vice chair of a White House commission that oversees paid fellowships in federal offices, according to the couple's foundation website.The Postal Service's governing board, a group appointed by the president with confirmation from the Senate, selected DeJoy as Postmaster General on May 6, 2020, after what it described as an extensive nationwide search for qualified candidates. At the time of that decision, Trump had appointed all six board members Chairman Robert Duncan, John Barger, Ron Bloom, Roman Martinez IV, Donald Moak, and William Zollars since the early days of his presidency.In sum, considering DeJoy's record of donations, as well as evidence of him hosting a Trump fundraiser at his Greensboro home in fall 2017, it is accurate to claim that the new postmaster general is a political ally to the Republican president.In summer 2020, the viral claim about DeJoy that he had directed carriers to delay mail to benefit Trump's reelection campaign (which we unpack below) took on another layer: that DeJoy had also allegedly invested $70 million of his own money in delivery companies that compete with the Postal Service.That allegation, which we deemed true (see the explanation below), was particularly worrisome for critics of Trump and DeJoy, who believed the alleged holdings were more proof of the two leaders conspiring together this time in an attempt to privatize the Postal Service.Here's some context before we dive into DeJoy's personal assets: Conservative Republicans have long pushed to remove government from mail services that they believe should be left to the private commercial market. Since Trump took office, he has called the Postal Service "a joke" or Amazon's "delivery boy," considering its package rates, and has floated the idea of eventually privatizing the agency.At the same time, the Postal Service which does not receive tax dollars for its operating expenses faces a worsening financial situation due to a 2006 congressional mandate that required the agency to prepay health care benefits of retirees, as well as a decline in first-class mail customers. The coronavirus pandemic exacerbated those long-standing problems, forcing several post offices nationwide to completely close or scale back hours.For instance, on April 9, 2020, roughly one month before DeJoy was selected to lead the Postal Service, then-Postmaster General Megan Brennan said the agency was preparing for a $13 billion revenue shortfall due directly to COVID-19 and an additional $54.3 billion in losses over 10 years. Considering those projections, she said the agency could run out of cash this fiscal year or the end of September without federal intervention. (Brennan announced her retirement in October 2019, after more than 30 years with the agency.)The former Postal Service leader made those comments shortly after federal leaders negotiated a $2.2 trillion COVID-19 economic relief package, called the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, which, initially, included a $13 billion one-time boost for the mail service. But, purportedly at the urging of Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin and aides to Trump, congressional leaders removed that provision from the stimulus package, and instead included a $10 billion loan that the Trump administration could leverage in its favor. Then, on July 29, 2020, The Washington Post reported that under DeJoy's leadership, the postal agency gave Mnuchin's office's proprietary information about the Postal Service's most lucrative private-sector contracts, such as Amazon, FedEx and UPS, in exchange for the loan money.On Aug. 13, 2020, during an interview on Fox Business Network, the president said frankly the tug-and-pull over Postal Service funding was part of his administration's plan to try to make it harder for the agency to handle the expected surge in mail-in ballots in the November election. If we dont make a deal, that means they dont get the money, Trump told host Maria Bartiromo, referring to the false claim that Democrats are are proposing a universal mail-in voting system. That means they cant have universal mail-in voting; they just cant have it.For more than 30 years, DeJoy was the CEO of New Breed Logistics, a supply chain business that contracted with a variety of public and private companies, including the Postal Service. In 2014, XPO Logistics acquired DeJoy's company, and he served on the company's executive team or board of directors until May 2018. According to internal documents, which we obtained using the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission's (SEC) database of company filings, XPO Logistics considered its competitors to include DHL, FedEx, UPS, and J.B. Hunt Transport Services. Aside from that evidence, which proved DeJoy's former company competed for business with organizations that also competed with the Postal Service, Snopes uncovered a letter from his wife, Wos, to a White House legal advisor on January 3, 2020, that listed her family's financial assets, known as "Attachment A." According to that list, the family had stock in companies including UPS, J.B. Hunt Transport Services, Inc., and XPO Logistics, Inc.She wrote the letter in response to a nomination by the Trump administration to serve as U.S. ambassador to Canada, and she said she would divest from all holdings in the document within 90 days of her confirmation. However, as of this writing, Wos had not been sworn into the position. The letter, which was available via the Office of Government Ethics, read:As of June 15, 2020, the day DeJoy assumed his role as postmaster general, The Washington Post reported the couple had between $30.1 million and $75.3 million in assets in Postal Service competitors or contractors. XPO Logistics represented the vast majority of those investments, and the couple's combined stake in UPS and trucking company J.B. Hunt, for examples, was roughly $265,000.On DeJoy's first day, the Senate's top Democrat, Charles Schumer of New York, said in letter to the Postal Service's board of governors' chairman: "[DeJoy's] financial interests in companies that have business ties with the Postal Services, as well as his extensive campaign fundraising efforts, raise questions" over his ethical conflicts of interest and partisan interests.By that point, a spokeswoman for DeJoy told journalists he had resigned as finance chair for the Republican National Convention, and would "comply with any financial divestitures that are required" for the new leadership position.Upon our analysis, the rumor seems to have stemmed from a series of directives DeJoy gave Postal Service employees since he took over the agency. On his first day, for example, he addressed the agency in a video that alluded to impending changes under his leadership that aimed to create a "viable operating model," though he did not go into specifics.A July 10, 2020, internal document to managers, which Snopes received from the American Postal Workers Union and refers to an "operational pivot" for the agency, said the following, for example:The initial step in our pivot is targeted on transportation and the soaring costs we incur due to late trips and extra trips, which costs the organization somewhere around $200 million in added expenses.But perhaps most relevant to the claim, the DeJoy-sponsored directives included instructions for employees to leave letters or packages at distribution centers if they delayed carriers from their routes contradicting previous rules for deliveries and said the Postal Service would no longer pay employees overtime to complete all mail deliveries. The July 10, 2020 memo said:We also considered a separate message to employees in July 2020 that said, under a new initiative, carriers in certain regions would not sort any mail during the morning and instead clock in, retrieve sorted mail from the previous day and limit time in the office as much as possible. Then, when they returned from the streets, they would sort all available mail for the next day.The agency said the extra spending on employees' overtime or delivery trips had not improved "our performance scores," without going into detail on what that meant, and framed the changes as necessary steps to improve its financial position. A July 27, 2020, public statement from DeJoy said:Soon after the directives, American Postal Workers Union President Mark Dimondstein told us in a phone interview that employees and customers across the country were noticing mail delays. In the Philadelphia region, for instance, the Philadelphia Inquirer reported situations where residents were going upwards of three weeks without receiving packages and letters, and postal union leaders and carriers said mail was piling up at offices, unscanned and unsorted.Specifically, they worried the new requirements for post office carriers and clerks would lead to backlogs of mail-in ballots and thus create challenges for elections officials who, in the majority of states, must invalidate ballots that reach them after Election Day even if they were postmarked before that date. Rep. Carolyn Maloney, a Democrat from New York, for example, led colleagues in writing a letter to DeJoy on July 20, 2020, that said:What we do know for truth is this administration is, in written record, proposing and planning to sell the post office to private corporations, i.e. privatizing...That was June 2018. We also know as a fact that ...that [there are] calls for reduced service, increased prices, and less workers' rights and benefits. So if you take those two things together, certainly if they're implemented, then they're going to cause delays in mail; they're going to cause service being undermined...Days later, he said in a statement to news media that certain deadlines concerning mail-in ballots, may be incompatible with the Postal Services delivery standards, especially if election officials dont pay more for first-class postage. To the extent that states choose to use the mail as part of their elections, they should do so in a manner that realistically reflects how the mail works, he said.Then, on Aug. 18, 2020, DeJoy issued a statement in which he said he would temporarily suspend initiatives "that have been raised as areas of concern as the nation prepares to hold an election in the midst of a devastating pandemic," including the controversial July 2020 directives that eliminated overtime and some delivery trips. The statement read:

FMD_train_876

IRS Complaint Fraud

05/31/2007

Scam: The IRS (or the Department of Justice) is sending out notifications of "complaints in regards to business services" via e-mail. Example: [Collected on the Internet, May 2013] Internal Revenue Service You have received a complaint in regards to your business services. The complaint was filled by Mr./Mrs. Filelio BALDIZAN on 05/29/2013/ Case Number: 165430554448 Instructions on how to resolve this complaint as well as a copy of the original complaint are attached to this email. Disputes involving consumer products and/or services may be arbitrated. Unless they directly relate to the contract that is the basis of this dispute, the following claims will be considered for arbitration only if all parties agree in writing that the arbitrator may consider them: Claims based on product liability; Claims for personal injuries; Claims that have been resolved by a previous court action, arbitration, or written agreement between the parties. The decision as to whether your dispute or any part of it can be arbitrated rests solely with the IRS. The IRS offers a binding arbitration service for disputes involving marketplace transactions. Arbitration is a convenient, civilized way to settle disputes quickly and fairly, without the costs associated with other legal options. Origins: People generally associate the name "Internal Revenue Service" (IRS) with "trouble" (i.e., rarely does an envelope from the IRS bear good news), so messages that appear to issue from the IRS usually grab a recipient's attention and are therefore excellent bait for phishing schemes and other scams. The key point to keep in mind to protect oneself from this form of fraud is that neither the IRS nor the Department of Justice (DOJ) sends out unsolicited e-mails or ask taxpayers to supply detailed personal and financial information (including PINs and passwords) via e-mail. Phony "complaint in regards to your business services" messages (like the example cited above) that have been appearing in inboxes since May 2007 use the lure of seemingly official IRS communications to trick recipients into clicking on links or opening attachments, with predictably harmful results. In this case, the payoff was apparently not the usual direct phishing scheme (i.e., an attempt to lure the unwitting into providing sensitive personal and financial information) but the planting of a Trojan Horse on recipients' computers: The Internal Revenue Service has alerted taxpayers to the latest versions of an e-mail scam intended to fool people into believing they are under investigation by the agency's Criminal Investigation division. The e-mail purporting to be from IRS Criminal Investigation falsely states that the person is under a criminal probe for submitting a false tax return to the California Franchise Tax Board. The e-mail seeks to entice people to click on a link or open an attachment to learn more information about the complaint against them. The IRS warned people that the e-mail link and attachment is a Trojan Horse that can take over the persons computer hard drive and allow someone to have remote access to the computer. The IRS urged people not to click the link in the e-mail or open the attachment. Similar e-mail variations suggest a customer has filed a complaint against a company and the IRS can act as an arbitrator. The latest versions appear aimed at business taxpayers as well as individual taxpayers. The IRS and the DOJ advise "Recipients of questionable e-mails claiming to come from" either agency should not open any attachments or click on any links contained in the e-mails. Instead, they should forward the e-mails to [email protected] or file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3). advise [email protected] IC3 Last updated: 29 May 2013

False

The IRS and the DOJ advise "Recipients of questionable e-mails claiming to come from" either agency should not open any attachments or click on any links contained in the e-mails. Instead, they should forward the e-mails to [email protected] or file a complaint with the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3).

FMD_train_714

The United States imports 50 percent of at least 50 mineral commodities each year, including 100 percent of 21 of them.

12/03/2018

Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., raised concern about the United States' dependence on foreign countries for mineral needs in an opinion-editorial this fall. Manchin wrote anop-edwith Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that was published in the Parkersburg News and Sentinel on Oct. 14, 2018. The op-ed touts several bipartisan efforts by Manchin and Murkowski on national energy policy. In a section detailing a joint amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act that the senators submitted this year, Manchin and Murkowski wrote that we import 50 percent of at least 50 mineral commodities each year, including 100 percent of 21 of them. Is that correct? We were able to trace Manchins claim back to areportpublished by the U.S. Geological Survey published in January 2018. The report includes figures showing how much the United States relies on imports for individual commodities and where these imports come from. This report, published annually, notes that in 2017, imports made up more than one-half of the U.S. apparent consumption for 50 nonfuel mineral commodities, and the United States was 100 percent import-reliant for 21 of those. Heres a chart from the report summarizing the critical minerals, the percentage of imports, and the countries of origin. The chart confirms that for 50 minerals, at least half are imported, and for 21, the U.S. supply is entirely imported. Some of the commodities that the U.S. most heavily imports include arsenic, asbestos, and gemstones. China and Canada were the heaviest suppliers of mineral commodities to the United States in 2017, the report said. We found only one thing to quibble about the statement. Manchin and Murkowski would have been more accurate if they had put the phrase at least in a different place, by writing that the United States imports at least 50 percent of 50 mineral commodities each year, including 100 percent of 21 of them. In his joint op-ed with Murkowski, Manchin wrote that the United States imports 50 percent of at least 50 mineral commodities each year, including 100 percent of 21 of them. The point is well-taken, though the language is a bit garbled. Its actually at least 50 percent of 50 mineral commodities. We rate the statement Mostly True.

True

Manchin wrote anop-edwith Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, that was published in the Parkersburg News and Sentinel on Oct. 14, 2018. The op-ed touts several bipartisan efforts by Manchin and Murkowski on national energy policy.We were able to trace Manchins claim back to areportpublished by the U.S. Geological Survey published in January 2018. The report includes figures showing how much the United States relies on imports for individual commodities and where these imports come from.

FMD_train_353

Mandatory Ebola Vaccinations in the U.S.

10/13/2014

Claim: The U.S. government is planning to implement mandatory Ebola vaccinations for all residents. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2014] Ebola vaccine is going to be mandatory for all people in the U.S. Everyone will have to carry medical cards showing that they have received the vaccine to be employed, receive driver's license, buy groceries, etc. Those who do not comply will be quarantined in segregation areas until they do. Origins: The outbreak or spread of any infectious disease that potentially carries a significantly high mortality rate is typically accompanied by conspiracy theories positing that the government is planning to forcibly isolate those who carry the disease in internment camps or similar facilities in order to protect the general population. The example reproduced above carries on that tradition, holding that everyone in the U.S. will be required to undergo vaccination for Ebola and carry proof of same in order to be employed (or licensed to drive, or able to purchase groceries), and those who fail to do will be "quarantined in segregation areas" until they submit. First of all, the notion of requiring everyone in the U.S. to undergo mandatory vaccination or face incarceration especially for a disease that has so far manifested only a few cases and a single death in the whole country is a far-fetched one that would require overcoming some huge legal and civil rights issues regarding its constitutionality and would likely take years of legislative wrangling to ever implement. Some states in the U.S. have enacted regulations requiring children to undergo specified vaccinations as a prerequisite to public school attendance, but expanding the scope of mandatory vaccinations to encompass every single person in the country, with the punishment of forced segregation for those who did not comply, would be a huge legal hurdle that likely would not be cleared for a very long time to come (and probably not ever). constitutionality This rumor also falls flat against the fact that there is as yet no vaccine for Ebola. Commercial funding for development of an Ebola vaccine is difficult to obtain, as the disease is not a medical market priority in the U.S.: At least four vaccines are being developed to protect people against Ebola, including one that protects monkeys completely against the deadly virus. Several groups are also working on treatments, but one of the most promising is stuck in safety testing. They might be farther along if not for one problem: money. Even though Ebola is burning out of control in West Africa, it's not a huge potential market for a large pharmaceutical company to sink its teeth and its assets into developing. That leaves the U.S. government and small, niche biopharmaceutical companies. "I don't see why anybody except the U.S. government would get involved in developing these kinds of countermeasures," said Dr. Sina Bavari of the U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID) in Frederick, Maryland. "There is no market in it." Ebola is so unpredictable that it would be very difficult to find enough people at high risk to test it in. Diseases such as influenza and even HIV are common and it's easy to test large groups of people. Not so with Ebola. Some potential Ebola vaccines have only just been rushed into clinical trials; it will take time to assess their safety and efficacy, and there are no guarantees that any of them will prove widely effective. Even if one of these vaccines should show promise, even more time would have to pass before it could clear U.S. testing and regulatory requirements and put on the market, and even then it would likely initially be available only in small quantities just enough to protect the health workers who are battling the current outbreak: The first trial of an Ebola vaccine in Africa has started, researchers said, with the vaccination of three health care workers in Mali. It's the latest vaccine to be rushed into clinical trials after the worst-ever outbreak of Ebola in West Africa turned into a full scale epidemic. Ebola's infected more than 8,000 people and killed about half of them, and the World Health Organization says the true toll is likely even higher. It'll be months before any vaccine would be available, and even then it will be a small amount, probably used to protect health care workers. But experts say it's a vital first step to getting doctors, nurses and technicians to even come and help fight the outbreak. Health workers are among those at highest risk of getting infected. "This research will give us crucial information about whether the vaccine is safe, well tolerated and capable of stimulating adequate immune responses in the highest priority target population, health care workers in West Africa,' said Dr. Myron Levine, director of the Center for Vaccine Development (CVD) at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. "If it works, in the foreseeable future it could help alter the dynamic of this epidemic by interrupting transmission to health care and other exposed front-line workers," Levine said in a statement. The fact remains that the U.S. health care system "is on high alert and prepared to contain isolated cases" of Ebola, so the chances that the threat to the U.S. posed by an Ebola outbreak would be significant enough to warrant even a suggestion of nationwide, freedom-depriving mandatory vaccinations are rather remote. Last updated: 14 October 2014 Fox, Maggie. "Scientists Struggle to Make Ebola Vaccines, Treatments." NBC News. 29 July 2014. Fox, Maggie and Becky Bratu. "First Ebola Vaccine Trial Starts in Africa." NBC News. 9 October 2014.

True

First of all, the notion of requiring everyone in the U.S. to undergo mandatory vaccination or face incarceration especially for a disease that has so far manifested only a few cases and a single death in the whole country is a far-fetched one that would require overcoming some huge legal and civil rights issues regarding its constitutionality and would likely take years of legislative wrangling to ever implement. Some states in the U.S. have enacted regulations requiring children to undergo specified vaccinations as a prerequisite to public school attendance, but expanding the scope of mandatory vaccinations to encompass every single person in the country, with the punishment of forced segregation for those who did not comply, would be a huge legal hurdle that likely would not be cleared for a very long time to come (and probably not ever).

FMD_train_824

Walt Disney's Will - First Pregnant Man

03/11/2008

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

False

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

FMD_train_125

Health care is the greatest contribution to spending increases in the state budget.

10/09/2011

In September, Dr. Nick Tsiongas wrote a commentary for The Providence Journal about how the federal health-care overhaul is taking shape in Rhode Island. Tsiongas, a former state legislator and past president of the Rhode Island Medical Society, is a founding board member of HealthRIght, a statewide group working for the passage and implementation of comprehensive health care reform. His piece made the case for a robust health benefits exchange, which would create a marketplace where people and businesses could buy health insurance. To frame the issue, Tsiongas began by saying, "In Rhode Island, as elsewhere in America, the cost of health care threatens bankruptcy for those without insurance; individuals and businesses find premiums increasingly onerous and even unaffordable; and health care is the greatest contribution to spending increases in the state budget." The debate about the health-care exchange can extend to a range of topics, but we wanted to test one of Tsiongas' underlying claims: that health care is the biggest factor driving state budget increases. We contacted Tsiongas, who said he was referring to three main categories of health-care spending: Medicaid (which includes RIte Care/Share and nursing home and long-term care costs), state employees' health insurance costs, and retiree costs. To bolster his claim, Tsiongas cited a Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council report, which stated that total state spending from all sources increased by about $2 billion between fiscal years 2001 and 2011. Human services accounted for the largest share of the increase (37.5 percent), followed by general government (28.8 percent) and education (26.3 percent), according to the report. Grants and benefits for human services programs represent the largest share of expenditures in the total budget, and the majority of these expenditures are for medical assistance programs. The RIPEC report noted that The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation tracks Medicaid spending by state, and in fiscal year 2009, Rhode Island ranked fourth (behind Ohio, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts) in state Medicaid spending as a percentage of the general fund. Medicaid remains about a quarter of the state budget, and projected increases are unsustainable without health system payment reform, Tsiongas wrote in an email. One can argue that this and next year's state pension contributions may dwarf other increases, but this represents a catch-up of long-standing pension underpayments by the state, whereas the state's health-care costs have had a sustained role in the budget over time. Tsiongas said the state's health-care costs don't just include Medicaid; they also encompass the cost of providing health insurance coverage to state employees and retirees. To check Tsiongas, we turned first to RIPEC, a business-backed organization that has been analyzing the factors that drive public spending since 1932. In a chart it prepared for PolitiFact, RIPEC showed that medical assistance, which includes most Medicaid spending in the state, increased by $713.5 million between fiscal 2002 and the enacted budget for fiscal 2012, accounting for 28.4 percent of the spending increase from all sources of revenue during that decade. No other category of spending increased by that much, according to the RIPEC chart. A category of other grants and benefits, which includes some higher education spending and unemployment insurance, rose by $566 million, accounting for 22.6 percent of the spending increase. Salaries and benefits for state employees rose by $499 million, accounting for 19.9 percent of the increase during that decade. However, it should be noted that salaries and benefits include the employee health-care costs that Tsiongas referenced. So when you combine all three areas of health-care spending—Medicaid, employee health care, and retiree health care—they make up the single largest category of increased spending in the state budget over that 10-year span, according to RIPEC officials. During that time, those three areas have driven up the budget even more than state pension payments, RIPEC officials said. In recent months, public attention has focused on the pension system because the cost to Rhode Island taxpayers of financing the state-run pensions for public employees has more than doubled during the last seven years, and actuaries say it could double again next fiscal year to more than $600 million. RIPEC officials stated that those rapidly escalating pension costs could become a bigger factor than health-care costs in the near future—if nothing is done. However, they noted that the treasurer and the governor are formulating a pension proposal, and they expect the General Assembly to take action to curtail pension costs during an upcoming special session. "In 2013 and in the future, pensions will become the main issue that needs to be addressed," RIPEC Executive Director John Simmons said. "But, historically, the Medicaid and health-care issue has been the largest driver of costs." State Budget Officer Thomas A. Mullaney agreed that pension costs could become a much bigger factor in the budget if nothing is done. However, he stated that over the last several years, particularly in the area of Medicaid, health-care costs have been the largest driver in the budget from an absolute dollar amount standpoint. Therefore, Tsiongas had the correct diagnosis when he said that health care is the greatest contribution to spending increases in the state budget.

True

His piece made the case for a robust health benefits exchange, which would create a marketplace where people and businesses could buy health insurance.To frame the issue, Tsiongas began by saying, In Rhode Island, as elsewhere in America, the cost of health care threatens bankruptcy for those without insurance, individuals and businesses find premiums increasingly onerous and even unaffordable, and health care is the greatest contribution to spending increases in the state budget.The debate about the health-care exchange can extend to a range of topics, but we wanted to test one of Tsiongas underlying claims: That health care is the biggest factor driving state budget increases.We contacted Tsiongas, who said he was referring to three main categories of health-care spending: Medicaid (which includes RIte Care/Share and nursing home and long-term care costs ), state employees health insurance costs, and retiree costs.To bolster his claim, Tsiongas cited a Rhode Island Public Expenditure Council report, which said that total state spending from all sources increased by about $2 billion between fiscal years 2001 and 2011. Human services accounted for the largest share of the increase (37.5 percent), followed by general government (28.8 percent) and education (26.3 percent), the report says.Grants and benefits for human services programs represent the largest share of expenditures in the total budget and the majority of these expenditures are for medical assistance programs.The RIPEC report noted that The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation tracks Medicaid spending by state, and in fiscal year 2009 Rhode Island ranked fourth (behind Ohio, New Hampshire and Massachusetts) in state Medicaid spending as a percentage of the general fund.Medicaid remains about a quarter of the state budget and projected increases are unsustainable without health system payment reform, Tsiongas wrote in an e-mail. One can argue that this and next years state pension contributions may dwarf other increases, but this represents a catch-up of long-standing pension underpayments by the state, whereas the states health-care costs have had a sustained role in the budget over time.Tsiongas said the states health-care costs dont just include Medicaid; they also include the cost of providing health-insurance coverage to state employees and retirees.To check Tsiongas, we turned first to RIPEC, a business-backed organization that has been analyzing the factors that drive public spending since 1932.In a chart it prepared for PolitiFact, RIPEC showed that medical assistance, which includes most Medicaid spending in the state, increased by $713.5 million between fiscal 2002 and the enacted budget for fiscal 2012 -- accounting for 28.4 percent of the spending increase from all sources of revenue during that decade.No other category of spending increased by that much, according to the RIPEC chart. A category of other grants and benefits, which includes some higher education spending and unemployment insurance, rose by $566 million, accounting for 22.6 percent of the spending increase. And salaries and benefits for state employees rose by $499 million, accounting for 19.9 percent of the increase during that decade.But it should be noted that salaries and benefits includes the employee health-care costs that Tsiongas referenced.So when you combine all three areas of health-care spending -- Medicaid, employee health care and retiree health care -- they make up the single largest category of increased spending in the state budget over that 10-year span, RIPEC officials said.During that time, those three areas have driven up the budget even more than state pension payments, RIPEC officials said. In recent months, public attention has focused on the pension system because the cost to Rhode Island taxpayers of financing the state-run pensions for public employees has more than doubled during the last seven years and actuaries say it could double again next fiscal year to more than $600 million.RIPEC officials said that those rapidly escalating pension costs could become a bigger factor than the health-care costs in the near future -- if nothing is done. But they noted the treasurer and the governor are formulating a pension proposal, and they expect the General Assembly to take action to curtail pension costs during an upcoming special session.In 2013 and in the future, pensions will become the main issue that needs to be addressed, RIPEC Executive Director John Simmons said. But, he said, historically the Medicaid and health-care issue has been the largest driver of costs.State Budget Officer Thomas A. Mullaney agreed that pension costs could become a much bigger factor in the budget, if nothing is done. But, he said, over the last several years, particularly in the area of Medicaid, health-care costs have been the largest driver in the budget, from an absolute dollar amount standpoint.So Tsiongas had the correct diagnosis when he said that health care is the greatest contribution to spending increases in the state budget. We rate his claimTrue.

FMD_train_1725

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

12/13/2023

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

False

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

FMD_train_1317

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

10/19/2021

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

False

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

FMD_train_480

Psychological manipulation at the White House

09/17/2015

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

False

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

FMD_train_475

Did Musician Tommy Lee Write This Open Letter to Donald Trump?

04/03/2020

In March 2020, some social media users encountered an open letter that was supposedly written by Mötley Crüe musician Tommy Lee to U.S. President Donald Trump, which began with "Dear fucking lunatic." Lee did not write this letter. The Mötley Crüe musician posted the letter to his Facebook page (which is likely why some people mistakenly assumed he had written it) on March 20, 2020, and attributed the letter to a man named Craig Alan Wilkins. However, "Craig Alan Wilkins" didn't write this letter either. The majority of the text in this letter—most everything except for the introduction starting with "Do you know how fucking insane you sound, you off-brand butt plug?"—was published on Daily Kos in December 2017 in an article by "Aldous J. Pennyfarthing." Pennyfarthing's letter was written in response to an interview Trump gave to The New York Times in 2017, in which he said, "

False

The majority of text in this letter most everything except for the intro starting with "Do you know how fucking insane you sound, you off-brand butt plug?" was published on the Daily Kos in December 2017 in an article by "Aldous J Pennyfarthing."Pennyfarthing's letter was written in response to an interview Trump gave to The New York Times in 2017, in which he said, "Yeah, China. Chinas been. I like very much President Xi. He treated me better than anybodys ever been treated in the history of China."It's unclear who amended the opening paragraph in this letter. It's possible that a Facebook user named "Craig Alan Wilkins" shared Pennyfarthing's open letter with a new introductory paragraph. While the author of the opening paragraph is still uncertain, the majority of this text was written by Aldous J Pennyfarthing, the pen name for author Tom Breuer, and was originally published on the Daily Kos in 2017. This open letter was subsequently published in Pennyfarthing's 2018 book Dear F*cking Lunatic: 101 Obscenely Rude Letters to Donald Trump.

FMD_train_1611

Twenty million Americans are out of work.

03/09/2016

For all the discussion of immigration, foreign policy and social issues in the 2016 campaign, one issue always returns to the fore eventually: jobs. Republican candidate John Kasich emphasizes his record on jobs as Ohio governor in a new ad. Theadbegins with grainy footage of what seems to be an unemployment line. The narrators first words are, Twenty million Americans are out of work, and this assertion is bolstered by being repeated in on-screen text: This figure sounded high to us, since the official number of unemployed Americans during the most recent month, February, tops out at about 7.8 million. So we asked the Kasich campaign for their evidence, and they proceeded to cite a source that caught us off-guard: Us. Specifically, they pointed to ourfact-check from Augustin which we analyzed a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump said that we have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed. We rated this claimFalse, largely because the 93 million number included lots of people who would not be expected to want or be able to work, including full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen to take care of their children full-time. However, in the process, we conducted a mathematical experiment in which we played with possible numbers of Americans who are out of work that fit somewhere between the official unemployment rate (on the low end) and Trumps number (on the high end). HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKER Heres what we wrote, using the statistics that were current at the time: The official number of unemployed Americans is 8.3 million -- less than one-tenth of what Trump says. But to give Trump the benefit of the doubt, its possible to expand this number using more credible economic thinking. Gary Burtless, an economist at the Brookings Institution, says its not unreasonable to include: The 6.4 million people who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job. And the 6.5 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job. This would mean that upwards of 21 million Americans could be described with some justification as out of work involuntarily, either fully or partially. But thats not even one-quarter of the number that Trump offered. Rob Nichols, a spokesman for Kasich, said the campaign simply updated our math with more recent data in preparing the television ad. The numbers for January 2016, Nichols said, were: Unemployed: 7.8 million People who havent looked for work recently enough to qualify as being in the labor force, but who say they currently want a job: 6.2 million People working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job: 6 million. That works out to 20 million on the nose. We salute the Kasich campaigns efforts to fact-check-proof their assertion. Still, we should note that we didnt intend our calculation to be the final word on how to determine the number of out of work Americans. Rather, we were trying to provide a benchmark for showing just how wrong Trumps number was. Well note that our wording was that the 21 million figure had some justification not exactly a clarion call for the Bureau of Labor Statistics to change its longstanding protocol. In subsequent fact-checks, though not the one the Kasich campaign referred to, we have added language that is clearer about our intentions. We did that, for instance, in ourFeb. 11, 2016, fact-checkof a different statement by Trump: Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35 (percent). In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent. In that fact-check, which produced a rating ofPants on Fire, we prefaced a similar alternative calculation this way: We are deliberately stretching the numbers here as an intellectual exercise; we are not saying that 15.6 percent is a more accurate unemployment rate than the official one of 4.9 percent. But enough from us. What do the two economists we checked with for the original fact-check think about Kasichs use of the 20 million figure? Given that the image looks like a guy in an unemployment line, I'd say it's a misleading figure, said Tara Sinclair, an economist with George Washington University and the jobs website Indeed.com. Many people have good reasons for not wanting to work now, she said, and that is something distinct from actually being out of work. Burtless agreed, saying, The 5.988 million people working part-time who would prefer to have a full-time job are not out of work. They are employed, but on a work schedule that does not provide them with the weekly hours they desire. At the same time, Burtless said there is still some value in the number cited in Kasichs advertisement. Gov. Kasich has given an upper-bound estimate of the total number of Americans who are unemployed or underemployed, Burtless said. Its just not theonlyestimate. Our ruling Kasichs ad said that 20 million Americans are out of work. The Kasich campaign shrewdly cites a past PolitiFact item as evidence for this larger-than-usual estimate of Americas out of work population. But its worth noting that the calculation we did was not intended to determine the actual number of out-of-work Americans, but rather to suggest the highest figure with any sort of credibility as a way of seeing how far out of line Trumps assertion was. The statement is partially accurate but takes things out of context, so we rate it Half True.

NEI

Theadbegins with grainy footage of what seems to be an unemployment line. The narrators first words are, Twenty million Americans are out of work, and this assertion is bolstered by being repeated in on-screen text:Specifically, they pointed to ourfact-check from Augustin which we analyzed a statement by Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump. Trump said that we have 93 million people out of work. They look for jobs, they give up, and all of a sudden, statistically, they're considered employed.We rated this claimFalse, largely because the 93 million number included lots of people who would not be expected to want or be able to work, including full-time students, senior citizens, the disabled, and those who have chosen to take care of their children full-time.HELP US RAISE $15,000 TO HIRE AN EXTRA FACT-CHECKERIn subsequent fact-checks, though not the one the Kasich campaign referred to, we have added language that is clearer about our intentions. We did that, for instance, in ourFeb. 11, 2016, fact-checkof a different statement by Trump: Don't believe those phony numbers when you hear 4.9 and 5 percent unemployment. The number's probably 28, 29, as high as 35 (percent). In fact, I even heard recently 42 percent.In that fact-check, which produced a rating ofPants on Fire, we prefaced a similar alternative calculation this way: We are deliberately stretching the numbers here as an intellectual exercise; we are not saying that 15.6 percent is a more accurate unemployment rate than the official one of 4.9 percent.

FMD_train_1855

Is Aldi Giving Away Free Groceries on Facebook?

01/07/2020

A phenomenon know as "like-farming" refers to unscrupulous online activity in which fraudsters post salacious material in order to generate as many likes, shares, and comments as possible. As the popularity of these posts and pages grows, so do the opportunities to scam social media users. For instance, a fraudster may edit a post to include a malware link or request personal information or, if the audience has grown large enough, change the page's focus entirely and start selling spammy products. In January 2020, the popular grocery chain Aldi was used in one such scam. A fraudulent post from a page resembling the official Aldi USA Facebook page promised everyone who shared or commented on it the chance to win a year's worth of free groceries: This post did not originate with the official Aldi Facebook page, and the grocery chain is not giving away a year of free groceries to any Facebook fans who like, comment, or share this post. For starters, the post does not appear on the official Aldi USA Facebook page, nor on any of the store's other social media pages. We also checked the grocery chain's website for any mention of a grocery giveaway, but this too-good-to-be-true deal is not listed among Aldi's specials. official Aldi USA Facebook page social media Aldi's specials Lastly, this fraudulent Facebook post follows the same script of dozens of other like-farming scams: It makes a big promise (a year of free groceries) in order to entice readers, then makes a simple request (to comment or share) to ensure that this post reaches a larger audience. The post is also light on specifics (11 pm in what time zone? And what Sunday?) and originated on a page unaffiliated with the grocery chain. Here's how the Better Business Bureau described like-farming scams: What Exactly is Like-Farming? Like-farming on Facebook is a technique in which scammers create an eye-catching post designed to get many likes and shares. Posts often give people emotional reasons to click, like, and share, such as adorable animals, sick children, or political messages. For example, some posts claim that Facebook will donate money for every comment or share. As more people like and share the post, it appears in more news feeds, giving the post a much wider audience. Why Do Scammers Farm for Likes? As with many scams, like-farming has several different aims. When scammers ask you to register in order to win a free iPad or a free flight, this is a way to steal your personal information. Other versions can be more complex. Often, the post itself is initially harmless albeit completely fictional. But when the scammer collects enough likes and shares, they will edit the post and add something malicious. Thats often a link to a website that downloads malware to your machine. Other times, once scammers reach their target number of likes, they strip the pages original content and use it to promote spammy products. They may also resell the page on the black market. These buyers can use it to spam followers or harvest the information Facebook provides. This is not the first time that Aldi has been used for this type of scam. In 2015 (and again in 2019), a scam post offering free Aldi coupons was circulated on social media. free Aldi coupons We reached out to Aldi for more details and will update this article if more information becomes available. Better Business Bureau. "Like-Farming: A Facebook Scam Still Going Strong." 27 February 2018.

False

This post did not originate with the official Aldi Facebook page, and the grocery chain is not giving away a year of free groceries to any Facebook fans who like, comment, or share this post. For starters, the post does not appear on the official Aldi USA Facebook page, nor on any of the store's other social media pages. We also checked the grocery chain's website for any mention of a grocery giveaway, but this too-good-to-be-true deal is not listed among Aldi's specials. This is not the first time that Aldi has been used for this type of scam. In 2015 (and again in 2019), a scam post offering free Aldi coupons was circulated on social media.

FMD_train_1293

Don't Buy Gas on April 15

05/13/2004

Claim: Participating in one-day boycott of gasoline on 15 April will help lower gasoline prices. Examples: [Collected on the Internet, March 2012] Don't pump gas on April 15, 2012. KEEP SENDING THIS. Let's all try this, wonderful if it helps. I'll do it! If running low, just get your gas the day before on April 14 or the day after on April 16. Every little bit helps. In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight. On April 15th 2011, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $1.20 a liter/$3.87 is most places. If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on April 15th and let's try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day. [Collected on the Internet, 2007] DO NOT PUMP GAS ON MAY 15TH... On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day. If you agree (which I cant see why you wouldnt) repost this bulletin repost it with "Don't pump gas on May 15th, 2007" [Collected on the Internet, 2006] No Gas on May 15th On May 15th all myspace members are to not go to the gas station in protest high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places. There are 72,110,073 members currently on the network, and the average car takes about 20 to 30 dollars to fill up. If all myspace members did not go to the pump on the 15th it would take $2,163,302,190.00 out of the oil companys pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets try to put a dent in the oil industry for at least one day.. [Collected on the Internet, 2005] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE SEPTEMBER 1st HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHIND " DAY AND THE PEOPLE OF THESE TWO NATIONS SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THE GOVERNMENT TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE SEPTEMBER 1ST A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" [Collected on the Internet, 2004] IT HAS BEEN CALCULATED THAT IF EVERYONE IN THE UNITED STATES DID NOT PURCHASE A DROP OF GASOLINE FOR ONE DAY AND ALL AT THE SAME TIME, THE OIL COMPANIES WOULD CHOKE ON THEIR STOCKPILES. AT THE SAME TIME IT WOULD HIT THE ENTIRE INDUSTRY WITH A NET LOSS OF OVER 4.6 BILLION DOLLARS WHICH AFFECTS THE BOTTOM LINES OF THE OIL COMPANIES. THEREFORE MAY 19TH HAS BEEN FORMALLY DECLARED "STICK IT UP THEIR BEHINDS DAY" AND THE PEOPLE OF THIS NATION SHOULD NOT BUY A SINGLE DROP OF GASOLINE THAT DAY. THE ONLY WAY THIS CAN BE DONE IS IF YOU FORWARD THIS E-MAIL TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS YOU CAN AND AS QUICKLY AS YOU CAN TO GET THE WORD OUT. WAITING ON THIS ADMIINSTRATION TO STEP IN AND CONTROL THE PRICES IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. WHAT HAPPENED TO THE REDUCTION AND CONTROL IN PRICES THAT THE ARAB NATIONS PROMISED TWO WEEKS AGO? REMEMBER ONE THING, NOT ONLY IS THE PRICE OF GASOLINE GOING UP BUT AT THE SAME TIME AIRLINES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES, TRUCKING COMPANIES ARE FORCED TO RAISE THEIR PRICES WHICH EFFECTS PRICES ON EVERYTHING THAT IS SHIPPED. THINGS LIKE FOOD, CLOTHING, BUILDING MATERIALS, MEDICAL SUPPLIES ETC. WHO PAYS IN THE END? WE DO! WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. IF THEY DON'T GET THE MESSAGE AFTER ONE DAY, WE WILL DO IT AGAIN AND AGAIN. SO DO YOUR PART AND SPREAD THE WORD. FORWARD THIS EMAIL TO EVERYONE YOU KNOW. MARK YOUR CALENDARS AND MAKE MAY 19TH A DAY THAT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES SAY "ENOUGH IS ENOUGH" [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Last year on April 30, 1999, a gas out was staged across Canada and the U.S. to bring the price of gas down, and it worked. It's time to do something about it again. Only this time lets make it for three days instead of just one. The so-called oil cartel decided to slow production to drive up gasoline prices. Lets see how many CanadianAmerican people we can get to ban together for a three day period in April, NOT TO BUY ANY GASOLINE, during those three days. LET'S HAVE A GAS OUT. Do not buy any gasoline from APRIL 7, 2000, THROUGH APRIL 9, 2000. Buy what you need before the dates listed above, or after, but try not to buy any during the GAS OUT. If you want to help, just send this to everyone you know and ask them to do the same. We brought the prices down once before, and we can do it again. Come on North America lets stand together. WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. Even if you receive this 100 times keep passing it around, this way you know everyone is being informed and no one will forget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Origins: The above-quoted pieces advocating one-day gasoline boycotts are proof that some bad ideas never go away; they just keep getting recycled year after year. This year's e-mail (proposing a one-day "gas out" on 15 April) is yet another recasting of similar messages that have been circulating since 1999. All of them are reminders that "protest" schemes that don't cost the participants any inconvenience, hardship, or money remain the most popular, despite their ineffectiveness. A one-day "gas out" was proposed in 1999, and a three-day-long event was called for in 2000, but both drew little active participation and had no real effect on retail gasoline prices. The recycling of the same campaign in subsequent years hasn't drawn enough interest to even be considered newsworthy. The premise behind all these messages is inherently flawed, because consumers' not buying gasoline on one particular day doesn't affect oil companies at all. The "gas out" scheme doesn't call upon people to use less gasoline, but simply to shift their date of purchase and buy gas a day earlier or later than they usually would The very same amount of gasoline is sold either way, so oil companies don't lose any money. By definition, a boycott involves the doing without of something, with the renunciation of the boycotted product held up as tangible proof to those who supply the commodity that consumers are prepared to do without it unless changes are made. What the "gas out" calls for isn't consumers' swearing off using or buying gasoline, even for a short time, but simply shifting their purchases by a couple of days at most. Because the "gas out" doesn't call on consumers to make a sacrifice by actually giving up something, the threat it poses is a hollow one. Not buying gas on a designated day may make people feel a bit better about things by providing them a chance to vent their anger at higher gasoline prices, but the action won't have any real impact on retail prices. An effective protest would involve something like organizing people to forswear the use of their cars on specified days, an act that could effectively demonstrate the reality of the threat that if gasoline prices stayed high, American consumers were prepared to move to carpooling and public transportation for the long term. Simply changing the day one buys gas, however, imparts no such threat, because nothing is being done without. Moreover, the primary potential effect of the type of boycott proposed in the "gas out" messages is to hurt those at the very end of the oil-to-gasoline chain: the independent service station operators, who have the least say in setting gasoline prices. (Independents are at the mercy of a very volatile oil market and operate on thin profit margins, and even a single day's disruption of supply or demand can wipe out many days' worth of hard-earned profits.) As such, the "gas out" is a punch on the nose delivered to the wrong person. Either apathy or an outbreak of common sense has made previous "gas outs" non-events with very low levels of participation, as documented by these snippets of news accounts from across North America: Friday's gasoline boycott was an effort that sputtered, coughed, then died. Motorists continued to fill up gas-guzzling sport-utility vehicles and trucks alongside smaller vehicles despite a one-day protest aimed to pressure oil companies to lower gas prices. Although a gasoline boycott that began as an electronic mail campaign kept some drivers nationwide away from the pump, dealers say they saw little, if any, effect on their traffic. In Seattle, there were so many cars waiting to get into [a] Texaco station ... yesterday afternoon that it caused a backup five cars deep into [the] right-hand lane. Reports indicated few motorists paid attention to a nationwide boycott touted initially by Internet e-mail and later by word of mouth. A planned nationwide boycott protesting the high price of gasoline didn't have much effect on local gas stations. "We were expecting something substantial," said Mark Johnson, the owner of a Chevron station. "We haven't really noticed much of a difference." Irving stations in sunny Halifax said the boycott had no effect on business. "It's been busy as a bugger here," said Bruce Riley, manager of one station. "We haven't been busier in the last two weeks," added the manager at another Halifax outlet. Gas stations [in Ottawa] reported "busier than ever" conditions at the pumps on the day of The Great Internet Gas-Out. Gasoline is a fungible, global commodity, its price subject to the ordinary forces of supply and demand. No amount of consumer gimmickry and showmanship will lower its price in the long run; only a significant, ongoing reduction in demand will accomplish that goal. Unfortunately, for many people achieving that goal would mean cutting down on their driving or opting for less desirable economy cars over less fuel-efficient models, solutions they find unappealing. An event like a "gas out" can sometimes do some good by calling attention to a cause and sending a message. In this case, though, the only message being sent is: "We consumers are so desperate for gasoline that we can't even do without it for a few days to demonstrate our dissatisfaction with its cost." What supplier is going to respond to a message like that by lowering its prices? Those who really want to send a "message" to oil suppliers should try not buying any gasoline for several months in a row. Other articles about gasoline prices: Petition to President Bush Call to Boycott Particular Suppliers to Cut Off Funding of Terrorists Call to Spurn Gasoline from Particular Suppliers to Bring Price Down Last updated: 11 March 2013 Deibel, Mary. "Web-Inspired 'Gas Out' Won't Work, Experts Say." The [Albany] Times Union. 27 April 1999 (p. A2). De Marcol, Donna. "High Prices Fuel Gas Boycott; Locally, Impact Minimal." The Washington Times. 1 May 1999 (p. C11). Heaster, Jerry. "Gasoline Protest Runs on Empty." The Kansas City Star. 30 April 1999 (p. C1). Howe, Kenneth. "Internet-Fueled Gas Boycott Fizzles Around Bay Area." The San Francisco Chronicle. 1 May 1999 (p. A1). Sands, Aaron. "Net-Fuelled Protest Runs Out of Gas." The Ottawa Sun. 1 May 1999 (p. A4). Simmons, Cindy. "For Oregonians, Necessity Takes Precedence Over Protest at the Pump." Associated Press. 1 May 1999. Surman, Matt. "Gas Boycott Runs on Empty; Stations Report No Change." Los Angeles Times. 1 May 1999 (p. B6). Associated Press. "Arizonans Largely Ignore 'Gas Out.'" 1 May 1999. Calgary Herald. "Most Motorists Ignore North American Gas Boycott." 1 May 1999 (p. E5). Indianapolis Business Journal. "Misguided 'Gas Out' Won't Pay at Pump." 3 May 1999 (p. B9). Seattle Post-Intelligencer. "National Boycott Doesn't Slow Gas Flowing at Pumps." 1 May 1999 (p. B3). The Toronto Star. "Gas Boycott Sputters." 1 May 1999.

False

Petition to President Bush Call to Boycott Particular Suppliers to Cut Off Funding of Terrorists Call to Spurn Gasoline from Particular Suppliers to Bring Price Down

FMD_train_1667

General Motors Sales

09/10/2012

Claim: In June 2012, 79% of General Motors' sales were made to the U.S. federal government. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, August 2012] I just received the following & while it seems phony, I sure would liketo know. "79% of GM's sales last month were government purchased" Remember how obama keeps telling us how he saved GM, and how our economy is getting better, it seems the car company he bought is being saved by Govt employees using our tax money to buy new cars. 79% of GMs sales last month was government purchased. Origins: In July 2012 the above-referenced item began circulating (based on information propagated by web sites such as this one), claiming that a whopping 79% of automobile manufacturer General Motors (GM) sales in June 2012 came from purchases of vehicles by the (federal) government and suggesting that the Obama administration had engineered such purchases in order to make GM "appear financially strong" just in time for its upcoming quarterly report all to justify the President's 2009 decision to provide billions of dollars in federal aid to allow GM and Chrysler to restructure after government-backed bankruptcies. this one However, a closer reading the source material on which the claim was based reveals that it is not true that "79% of GM's sales [in June 2012] were government purchased." The 79% figure refers to the percentage by which GM's government fleet sales increased for the month, not to the proportion of GM's overall sales that came from government purchases. Moreover, the phrase "government purchases" doesn't refer only to the federal government: state, county, and municipal governments whose purchasing decisions are not directed by the White House are also large automotive fleet sales customers. source material fleet sales A General Motors spokesman maintained in a response that the percentage of GM's overall June 2012 sales attributable to government purchases was rather low and the bulk of those purchases were from non-federal government agencies: GM sales spokesman, Jim Cain, points out that total government sales for GM in June were still below 5% of total sales and [the] majority of government sales increases were attributed to state and local governments. Bloomberg news reported that all fleet sales (including purchases by rental car companies, typically the largest fleet customers) made up only 32% of GM's overall sales in June 2012. This number was comparable to that reported by Ford, who said fleet sales accounted for 35% of their deliveries that month. Last updated: 10 September 2012 Trudell, Craig. "Auto Sales in June Provided Bright Spot for U.S. Economy." Bloomberg. 3 July 2012. Press Release. "GM Reports June U.S. Sales Up 16 Percent." General Motors. 3 July 2012.

True

Origins: In July 2012 the above-referenced item began circulating (based on information propagated by web sites such as this one), claiming that a whopping 79% of automobile manufacturer General Motors (GM) sales in June 2012 came from purchases of vehicles by the (federal) government and suggesting that the Obama administration had engineered such purchases in order to make GM "appear financially strong" just in time for its upcoming quarterly report all to justify the President's 2009 decision to provide billions of dollars in federal aid to allow GM and Chrysler to restructure after government-backed bankruptcies.However, a closer reading the source material on which the claim was based reveals that it is not true that "79% of GM's sales [in June 2012] were government purchased." The 79% figure refers to the percentage by which GM's government fleet sales increased for the month, not to the proportion of GM's overall sales that came from government purchases. Moreover, the phrase "government purchases" doesn't refer only to the federal government: state, county, and municipal governments whose purchasing decisions are not directed by the White House are also large automotive fleet sales customers.

FMD_train_339

Since 1961 our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million).

09/06/2012

Are Democratic presidents better than Republican presidents at job creation? Former President Bill Clinton said so -- forcefully -- in his speech to the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte. Since 1961, for 52 years now, the Republicans have held the White House 28 years, the Democrats 24, Clinton said. In those 52 years, our private economy has produced 66 million private-sector jobs. So what's the jobs score? Republicans 24 million, Democrats 42 (million). In the packed convention hall, it was one of the nights biggest applause lines. In 2010, we checked a similar claim from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who said that Democratic presidents have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs. After crunching the numbers back to President Harry Truman, we found that jobs did indeed grow faster under Democratic presidents when adjusted for a presidents years served in office. So we rated the claimTrue. Clintons claim at the convention was worded differently, so we quickly re-crunched the numbers based on his specifications. Lets cut to the chase. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, here are the net increases in private-sector employment under each president, chronologically by party: RepublicansRichard Nixon: Increase of 7.1 million jobsGerald Ford: Increase of 1.3 million jobsRonald Reagan: Increase of 14.7 million jobsGeorge H.W. Bush: Increase of 1.5 million jobsGeorge W. Bush: Decline of 646,000 jobsTotal: Increase of 23.9 million jobs under Republican presidentsDemocratsJohn F. Kennedy: Increase of 2.7 million jobsLyndon B. Johnson: Increase of 9.5 million jobsJimmy Carter: Increase of 9.0 million jobsBill Clinton: Increase of 20.8 million jobsBarack Obama: Increase of 332,000 jobs Total: Increase of 42.3 million jobs. So Clinton is right. But well bring up a few points worth noting. This does not include government jobs The combination of private-sector jobs and public-sector jobs is a broader measurement of job creation than private-sector alone. But excluding government jobs would presumably hurt Democrats more than Republicans, given the two parties historical stances toward the role of government. The fact that Democrats finished so far ahead despite taking government jobs off the table makes it a more impressive accomplishment. The Democrats didnt benefit from population growth For our previous story, Brookings Institution economist Gary Burtless calculated that the U.S. working-age population actually grew slightly faster under Republican presidents, also making the Democratic accomplishment more impressive. Presidents deserves less credit for the good times and less blame for the bad times It's a truism of politics that when things go well, the president generally gets too much credit, and when things don't go well, the president usually gets too much blame. Shouldn't the Republican Congress of 1995-2001 get a share of the credit for Clinton's robust job growth? Shouldn't the Democratic House that served under Reagan? Most experts would say yes and yes. Since we published our previous story, we have changed our policy: We now factor into our ratings whether the politician or party deserves credit or blame for the statistical trend being analyzed. In this item, though, we will not factor in credit or blame, because both parties have had presidents serve during the time we looked at, meaning that both parties would have benefited and suffered in roughly equal proportions. Its unclear how much this finding says about our political and economic systems Job creation for each president depended to a certain extent on timing, external factors and luck. And as Yale political scientist David Mayhew pointed out for our previous story, conclusions drawn from a relatively narrow data set -- in this case, just 12 postwar presidencies -- need to be taken with a grain of salt. Our ruling Clintons figures check out, and they also mirror the broader results we came up with two years ago. Partisans are free to interpret these findings as they wish, but on the numbers, Clintons right. We rate his claim True.

True

In 2010, we checked a similar claim from Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who said that Democratic presidents have been considerably more effective at creating private-sector jobs. After crunching the numbers back to President Harry Truman, we found that jobs did indeed grow faster under Democratic presidents when adjusted for a presidents years served in office. So we rated the claimTrue.

FMD_train_1720

Are the majority of cruise ships registered under foreign flags?

03/23/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. As the COVID-19 pandemic threatened to shut down businesses across America in March 2020, the U.S. government faced the difficult task of deciding which industries should receive economic assistance to stay afloat. Public sentiment in some quarters was strongly against government bailouts for businesses such as airlines and cruise companies, on the grounds that many major operators had spent billions of dollars in profits buying back their own stock rather than paying down their debts. In USA Today, John M. Griffin and James M. Griffin wrote: "Start with the airlines. Rather than using their profits from the past five years to pay off debts and save for a rainy day, the big four—American, United, Delta, and Southwest—grew their combined liabilities to $166 billion, all while spending $39 billion on share repurchases." That amount, which is only from the big four, is almost 80% of what they are now asking for from U.S. taxpayers. Similarly, the three largest cruise companies—Carnival, Norwegian, and Royal Caribbean—have liabilities of $47.5 billion and engaged in share repurchases of $8 billion. Had these companies paid down their liabilities instead of using stock repurchases to inflate their stock prices, they would have been far better prepared to weather this emergency. Of course, higher share prices made their stock options more valuable, allowing top airline executives to pay themselves $666 million in compensation over the five-year period, while top cruise executives managed to earn $448 million. Now, taxpayers are unwillingly being called upon to bail out their extravagant behavior. A widely circulated meme on social media offered another reason why cruise lines were supposedly unworthy of government bailouts: although they might be headquartered in the U.S., their ships are foreign-flagged to evade U.S. law. That nearly every major cruise line registers their ships somewhere outside the U.S. is hardly disputable. As a 2011 news report noted, only a single major cruise ship at the time was U.S.-flagged: "Only one major cruise ship—NCL America's Pride of America—is registered in the United States, according to data from CyberCruises.com." Most of the big boats fly Bahamian flags, but other popular registries include Panama, Bermuda, Italy, Malta, and the Netherlands. In fact, according to the Cruise Lines International Association, 90% of commercial vessels calling on U.S. ports fly foreign flags. The three cruise lines mentioned in the meme—Disney, Celebrity, and Carnival—do indeed engage in this practice. It's not difficult to verify that Disney cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, Celebrity ships in Malta, and Carnival ships in Panama. Of course, the cruise industry and its critics offer differing reasons for why cruise ships are flagged in countries other than the U.S. The Cruise Lines International Association (CLIA) maintains that there are many factors determining where a cruise ship—or any maritime vessel—is flagged. Those determinations are made by individual cruise lines and other ship operators based on various factors, including the capabilities of the flag to deliver the necessary services, the representation and reputation of the flag in the international shipping community, the performance of the flag state, the pool of seafarers able to meet the needs of the flag, and the flag's fees, charges, and taxes. This can be viewed as a robust free-market debate. Some maintain that burdensome U.S. regulations have forced cruise operators to plant their flags elsewhere, while others argue that these corporations seek to attract American dollars while skirting American safety and consumer protection laws. On the other hand, an academic paper by Caitlin E. Burke of the University of Florida about "Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships" observed that reflagging of ships has long been used as a means of avoiding U.S. federal taxes, labor and safety laws, environmental laws, lawsuits, criminal investigations, and other regulations. Aside from the majority of revenue generated by U.S. passengers, cruise lines are independent of the U.S. economy. Even though nearly 75 percent of passengers are U.S. citizens, cruise line corporations and their ships are not traditionally American-owned or registered. Cruise line companies are not concerned about increasing minimum wage, rising insurance premiums, or higher corporate taxes. They escape federal taxes and labor laws by registering their corporations and vessels in foreign countries such as Panama, Liberia, and the Bahamas. In fact, employees of cruise lines are often mistreated due to lax labor laws, and worst of all, they find little to no recourse in pursuing litigation. Likewise, a U.S. citizen passenger faces the same predicament. A vessel's country of registration is commonly referred to as the "flag of convenience" (FOC). Flagging a ship under a foreign flag for the convenience of the cruise line is nothing new, nor is it rare. The majority of cruise ships today are registered in Panama, Liberia, or the Bahamas. It is important to note that many vessels within the same fleet are often registered in different countries. For example, Carnival Corporation has flagged its cruise vessel Celebration under Panama and Destiny under the Bahamas. Cruise lines often avoid drawing attention to the FOC by using the term "headquartered in Miami, Florida." While the majority of these cruise lines have their headquarters in Miami, they are not registered in the U.S. Thus, U.S. laws do not apply, and passengers are at the mercy of maritime law. The practice of ship reflagging is common and regular. Whether cruise lines headquartered in the U.S. but operating ships registered in foreign countries "deserve" government bailouts in a time of pandemic is a subjective issue with no definitive answer, but certainly, some critics have argued that they do not. Even in a crisis, companies with prudent balance sheets will survive and, in time, thrive. Despite what politicians might tell you, the airplanes and ships of imprudent companies are physical property that will not suddenly disappear. They will fly or sail again under the same or a different name, but hopefully with cheaper prices, better service, and different executives. Like a college student sleeping off a hangover, a crisis is a time to sober up by removing debt from the system. It's not time for another drink.

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. As the COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic of March 2020 threatened to shut down businesses across America for an extended period of time, the U.S. government faced the difficult task of deciding which industries should be provided economic assistance to keep them afloat for the duration. Public sentiment in some quarters was strongly against government bailouts for businesses such as airlines and cruise companies, on the grounds that over the last several years many of the major operators had spent billions of dollars in profits buying up their own stock rather than paying down their debts. In USA Today, John M. Griffin and James M. Griffin wrote:That nearly every major cruise line registers their ships somewhere outside the U.S. is hardly a disputable point. As a 2011 news report noted, only a single major cruise ship at the time was U.S.-flagged:The three cruise lines called out by name in the meme -- Disney, Celebrity, and Carnival -- do indeed engage in this practice. It's not difficult to verify that Disney cruise ships are registered in the Bahamas, Celebrity ships in Malta, and Carnival ships in Panama. Of course, the cruise industry and their critics offer differing reasons for why cruise ships are flagged in countries other than the U.S., with the former asserting that:On the other hand, an academic paper by Caitlin E. Burke of the University of Florida about "Legal Issues Relevant to Cruise Ships" made no bones of observing that reflagging of ships had long been used as a means of avoiding U.S. federal taxes, labor and safety laws, environmental laws, lawsuits, criminal investigations, and other regulations:That the practice of ship-reflagging is common and regular is undeniable. Whether cruise lines headquartered in the U.S. but operating ships registered in foreign countries "deserve" government bailouts in a time of pandemic is a subjective issue with no definitive answer, but certainly some critics have argued that they do not:

FMD_train_1055

Did Biden promise to get rid of the 'stepped-up' basis for the capital gains tax?

02/03/2021

In early 2021, readers asked Snopes to examine the accuracy of a widely shared social media post that purported to describe U.S. President Joe Biden's intention to eliminate a piece of tax law that allows taxpayers to benefit from selling a home inherited from their parents. The post, which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan, first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows: "Did you know Biden wants to get rid of something called 'stepped-up basis'? How does this affect you? When your parents pass and leave you the family house, normally you would inherit that property at its current value. If you were to sell that house, you would only pay taxes on the gain from its current value and what it sells for. If Biden does away with 'stepped-up basis,' you will inherit the property for what your parents paid for it. If you decide to sell, you will pay taxes on the difference between the original purchase price and what it sells for today. Here is what this looks like: Current Policy Inherited House at Current Value - $200,000 Sells for $205,000 Taxable income = $5,000 Taxes Due - 20% of $5,000 = $1,000 Profit to you = $204,000 Biden Policy Inherited House at Original Purchase Price - $40,000 Sells for $205,000 Taxable income = $165,000 Taxes Due - 20% of $165,000 = $33,000 Profit to you = $172,000 If your parents had sold this property prior to passing, they would have paid no taxes because it was their primary residence. So much for helping the middle class get ahead. My educated guess would be that at least 95% of Americans don’t even know Biden has proposed this. We are talking tens of thousands of additional tax dollars for the average person after inheritance! Wow, Google 'Biden stepped-up basis' and educate yourself because this is significant! Please share! The viral post accurately stated that Biden proposed getting rid of the 'stepped-up' basis for capital gains tax and correctly explained the potential practical consequences for an individual taxpayer who inherits a home. In fact, the tax burden for wealthier individuals would be even greater than the post stated, because Biden has also proposed doubling the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with income over $1 million. Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares or property: When people sell an asset for more than the price they paid for it, they realize a net capital gain. The net gain is typically calculated as the sale price minus the asset's adjusted basis—generally the original purchase price adjusted for improvements or depreciation. To calculate the gains on inherited assets, taxpayers generally use the asset's fair-market value at the time of the owner's death, often referred to as stepped-up basis, instead of the adjusted basis derived from the asset's value when the decedent initially acquired it. When the heir sells the asset, capital gains taxes are assessed only on the change in the asset's value relative to the stepped-up basis. As a result, any appreciation in value that occurred while the decedent owned the asset is not included in taxable income and therefore is not subject to the capital gains tax. In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works: Suppose an individual leaves stock worth $50 million to an heir, who immediately sells it. When purchased, the stock was worth $10 million, so the capital gain is $40 million. However, the heir's basis in the stock is stepped up to the $50 million gain when inherited, so no income tax is due on the sale, nor ever due on the $40 million of gain. Each year, hundreds of billions in capital gains avoid tax as a result of the stepped-up basis. During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to eliminate the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that the plan makes official several policies the former vice president often discusses on the trail about student debt. Biden's policy includes his plan for reducing student loan debt obligations for students who enter the public service sector, allowing $10,000 of undergraduate or graduate debt relief per year for up to five years of service. Biden would also double the maximum amount of Pell grants available to students, including Dreamers, and would allow students making less than $25,000 a year to defer payments on their federal loans without accruing interest. Any student making more than $25,000 would pay 5% of their discretionary income toward their loans rather than the current 10% owed. The plan would be funded through the elimination of the stepped-up basis loophole, a type of break on inheritance taxes, and capping itemized deductions for wealthy Americans at 28%, according to the campaign. In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told potential donors: "I'm going to get rid of the bulk of Trump's $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that, but I'm going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis." On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated): "The Biden plan for post-secondary education is a $750 billion investment over 10 years, aimed at developing a stronger and more inclusive middle class. It will be paid for by ensuring the super-rich pay their fair share. Specifically, this plan will be funded by eliminating the gap in our tax law known as the 'Stepped-up Basis Loophole' as well as reducing the itemized deductions that the richest Americans can make to 28%." Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only eliminating the stepped-up basis but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains—that is, profits from the sale of an asset owned for more than one year—for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan: "As President, Biden will make healthcare a right by eliminating capital gains tax loopholes for the super wealthy. Today, the very wealthy pay a tax rate of just 20% on long-term capital gains... As President, Biden will roll back the Trump rate cut for the very wealthy and restore the 39.6% top rate he helped restore when he negotiated an end to the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy in 2012. Biden's capital gains reform will close the loopholes that allow the super wealthy to avoid taxes on capital gains altogether. Biden will ensure that those making over $1 million will pay the top rate on capital gains, doubling the capital gains tax rate on the super wealthy." The Facebook post shared widely in late 2020 and early 2021 accurately described Biden's stated intention to eliminate the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, a move that would indeed increase the tax burden on an individual who inherits a piece of property from their parents before selling it. The tax burden for wealthier taxpayers would be even greater than the Facebook post outlined, since Biden has also proposed increasing the rate of long-term capital gains tax for those with an income above $1 million. The Facebook post did not mention that Biden had stipulated he would use the money raised from eliminating the stepped-up basis to help pay for his healthcare and education plans. Snopes contacted the White House to ask whether the Biden administration still intended to push for the elimination of the stepped-up basis, but we did not receive a response in time for publication.

True

The post which was critical of Biden and the supposed plan first emerged during the 2020 presidential election campaign, but regained prominence after Biden was inaugurated in January 2021. It typically read as follows:Here's how the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office describes the stepped-up basis for capital gains tax, which is the tax due on profits from the sale of an asset, such as shares, a piece of property, and so on:In 2015, then-President Barack Obama also proposed eliminating the stepped-up basis. Here's his administration's explanation of how it works:During the 2020 presidential election, Biden and his campaign repeatedly expressed his intention to get rid of the stepped-up basis. As first highlighted by Politifact, the Biden campaign presented the proposal as a partial way to pay for its proposed student loan reforms. In October 2019, ABC News reported that:In June 2020, according to CNBC, Biden told would-be donors: "Im going to get rid of the bulk of Trumps $2 trillion tax cut, and a lot of you may not like that but Im going to close loopholes like capital gains and stepped-up basis.On the Biden-Harris campaign's website, a Spanish-language document outlining the campaign's plans for education reforms stated (translated):Elsewhere, the Biden campaign proposed not only getting rid of the stepped-up basis, but also doubling the tax rate for long-term capital gains that is, profits from the sale of an asset that you owned for more than one year for relatively wealthy taxpayers. Here's what the Biden-Harris campaign website stated, as part of the campaign's healthcare plan:

FMD_train_433

Is There a Warrant for CIA Director Nominee Gina Haspel's Arrest?

03/19/2018

The Trump administration has had its share of embattled nominees, but President Donald Trump's pick to head the Central Intelligence Agency in March 2018 is controversial even by those standards. Trump nominated the agency's deputy director, Gina Haspel, on 13 March 2018. But her record has come under question both in the U.S. and abroad because of her service while stationed at a secret CIA facility in 2002, leading to allegations that she committed war crimes (with commentary appearing, naturally, in meme form): A human rights advocacy group the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) has called for Haspel to be taken into custody if she travels to the continent. The group has petitioned federal prosecutors in Germany since 2014 to issue a warrant, saying: saying: Those who commit, order or allow torture should be brought before a court this is especially true for senior officials from powerful nations. The prosecutor must, under the principle of universal jurisdiction, open investigations, secure evidence and seek an arrest warrant. If the deputy director travels to Germany or Europe, she must be arrested. Andreas Schller, director of the group's International Crimes and Accountability Program, has said that ECCHR does not expect that Haspel will actually face a warrant; its goal, he said, is that German officials recognize Haspel's alleged actions: said If you allow her to come here, you are making a clear political decision that you prioritize that over your obligations under the Convention Against Torture They can't say they didn't know who was coming here. Haspel, who first joined the agency in 1985 during President Ronald Reagan's administration, was reportedly in charge of a secret "black site" prison in Thailand at which a prisoner and terror suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was waterboarded. She also allegedly supported the destruction of videotapes in 2005 capturing waterboardings at the prison. (However, a report stating that she was in charge of the facility, code-named "Cat's Eye," at the time another suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was tortured was retracted.) reportedly retracted. The use of waterboarding or "enhanced interrogation," as officials called it at the time was banned in 2009 by President Barack Obama. Five years later, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report criticizing the practice. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who was the committee chair at the time, wrote in the foreword to the report: banned report CIA personnel, aided by two outside contractors, decided to initiate a program of indefinite secret detention and the use of brutal interrogation techniques in violation of U.S. law, treaty obligations, and our values. In March 2018, Feinstein called on the agency to declassify documents related to Haspel's role in the program: called As we move forward with the nomination process for Ms. Haspel, my fellow Senators and I must have the complete picture of Ms. Haspel's involvement in the program in order to fully and fairly review her record and qualifications. I also believe the American people deserve to know the actual role the person nominated to be the director of the CIA played in what I consider to be one of the darkest chapters in American history. Two of Feinstein's GOP Senate colleagues, Rand Paul of Kentucky and John McCain of Arizona, have also called for Haspel to explain how involved she was with the agency's interrogation program while it was active. Paul McCain Michaelson, Jay. "Could CIA Nominee Gina Haspel Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?" The Daily Beast. 19 March 2018. Senator Dianne Feinstein. "Feinstein to CIA: Release Haspel Torture Documents." 15 March 2018. Goldman, Adam. "Gina Haspel, Trump's Choice for C.I.A., Played Role in Torture Program." New York Times. 13 March 2018. Bonner, Raymond. "Correction: Trump's Pick to Head CIA Did Not Oversee Waterboarding of Abu Zubaydah." ProPublica. 15 March 2018. MacAskill, Ewen. "Obama: 'I Believe Waterboarding Was Torture, And it Was a Mistake.'" The Guardian. 29 April 2009. Paul, Rand. "Why I'm Against Gina Haspel." Politico. 18 March 2018. Sen. John McCain. "Statement by SASC Chairman John McCain on Leadership Changes at State Department & CIA." 13 March 2018.

False

A human rights advocacy group the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) has called for Haspel to be taken into custody if she travels to the continent. The group has petitioned federal prosecutors in Germany since 2014 to issue a warrant, saying:Andreas Schller, director of the group's International Crimes and Accountability Program, has said that ECCHR does not expect that Haspel will actually face a warrant; its goal, he said, is that German officials recognize Haspel's alleged actions:Haspel, who first joined the agency in 1985 during President Ronald Reagan's administration, was reportedly in charge of a secret "black site" prison in Thailand at which a prisoner and terror suspect, Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, was waterboarded. She also allegedly supported the destruction of videotapes in 2005 capturing waterboardings at the prison. (However, a report stating that she was in charge of the facility, code-named "Cat's Eye," at the time another suspect, Abu Zubaydah, was tortured was retracted.)The use of waterboarding or "enhanced interrogation," as officials called it at the time was banned in 2009 by President Barack Obama. Five years later, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence released a report criticizing the practice. Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-California), who was the committee chair at the time, wrote in the foreword to the report:In March 2018, Feinstein called on the agency to declassify documents related to Haspel's role in the program:Two of Feinstein's GOP Senate colleagues, Rand Paul of Kentucky and John McCain of Arizona, have also called for Haspel to explain how involved she was with the agency's interrogation program while it was active.

FMD_train_1185

Do Abortion Rates Fall During Democratic Administrations, Rise During Republican Ones?

11/11/2016

In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old). collecting While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations: not perfect numbers Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data: describes Following nationwide legalization of abortion in 1973, the total number, rate (number of abortions per 1,000 women aged 1544 years), and ratio (number of abortions per 1,000 live births) of reported abortions increased rapidly, reaching the highest levels in the 1980s before decreasing at a slow yet steady pace. However, the incidence of abortion has varied considerably across demographic subpopulations. Moreover, during 20062008, a break occurred in the previously sustained pattern of decrease, but in all subsequent years has been followed by even greater decreases. The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment. Roe v. Wade It is plain to see that abortion rates have risen (prior to their peaking in the mid-1980s) and fallen under both Democratic and Republican administration, suggesting little to no correlation with whichever political party controls the White House. The overall trend since the 1980s has been a fairly consistent decline across through administrations of both parties. It would be easy to demonstrate that abortion rates have not risen under Democratic administrations in the last several decades, but it would be false to argue that declines in abortion rates are an exclusive feature of Democratic presidencies. The claim that abortion rates fall under Democrats, while true, ignores the fact that rates have also continued to decline through Republican administrations as well. The claim, then, that abortion rates (at least since their mid-1980s peak) have risen when Republicans have held the White House is therefore equally false. At most, one can argue that the rate of decline appeared to slow during the presidency of George W. Bush before increasing under President Barack Obama's administration, but such an observation would be based on a comparison between only two administrations and would do nothing to demonstrate causation. In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute: report Twenty-two states enacted 70 abortion restrictions during 2013. This makes 2013 second only to 2011 in the number of new abortion restrictions enacted in a single year. To put recent trends in even sharper relief, 205 abortion restrictions were enacted over the past three years (20112013), but just 189 were enacted during the entire previous decade (20012010). At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007. 1976 Hyde Amendment Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003 What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute: study Forty-four laws intended to restrict access to abortion were implemented in 18 states between 2008 and 2010; an additional 62 were implemented in 2011 in 21 states. Some of these laws, such as those that added information to existing counseling requirements, would not necessarily be expected to have a measurable impact. In turn, we found no indication that they affected state-specific trends in abortion incidence. [...] Finally, a number of states that did not enact any new abortion restrictions and that are generally supportive of abortion rightsfor example, by allowing state Medicaid funds to pay for abortions for eligible womenexperienced declines in their abortion rates comparable to, and sometimes greater than, the national decline (e.g., California, New Jersey and New York). That these states also experienced a slight drop in the number of clinics offering abortion services may reflect a decline in demand as opposed to the imposition of legal barriers. According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions: CDC Multiple factors influence the incidence of abortion including the availability of abortion providers; state regulations, such as mandatory waiting periods, parental involvement laws, and legal restrictions on abortion providers; increasing acceptance of nonmarital childbearing; shifts in the racial/ethnic composition of the U.S. population; and changes in the economy and the resulting impact on fertility preferences and access to health care services, including contraception.

False

In 1969, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) began collecting nationwide data on the numbers of abortions, the abortion ratio (abortions versus live births), and the abortion rate (abortions versus the US population of women aged 15-44 years old).While these data are not perfect due to inconsistent (and sometimes non-existent) reporting from different states, they can be used to analyze relative changes in abortion rates during the presidencies of different presidential parties, as we will do here using numbers from the CDCs annual abortion surveillance study. Red portions of the lines show the ratio and rates of abortions occurring under Republican administrations, and blue under Democratic administrations:Before delving into the specific relationship between abortions and the political party affiliation of the President, the complete data set should be analyzed as a whole to provide context. This is how the CDC describes the overall trend in their data:The large uptick in legal abortions though the 70s is related to the the landmark 1973 Roe v. Wade decision, in which the United States Supreme Court ruled that a womans right to an abortion is protected under the right to privacy of the Due Process Clause of the 14th amendment.In fact, causation between the presidency and abortion rates would be difficult to demonstrate in any case because it is hard to draw a straight line between federal government policy (let alone presidential policy) and abortion procurement. Nearly all challenges to open access to abortion have come at the state, and not the federal, level. According to a 2013 report by the pro-choice Guttmacher Institute:At the federal level, legislators have had more trouble passing abortion restrictions into law, making it difficult to argue that any presidential policy, specifically, has had an effect on abortion rates. The only relevant federal legislation that has been signed into law are the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which prohibited federal money from funding (most) abortions, and the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, which criminalized abortions in the second trimester of pregnancy and was upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court in 2007.What one can say, though, is that federal or myriad state-level regulations put in place do not appear to produce much of a change in abortion rates, according to a 2014 study by the Guttmacher Institute:According to the CDC, multiple factors can affect abortion rates, including those such as contraception and demographic changes that have an effect on the demand for (as opposed to availability of) abortions:

FMD_train_482

Have Sixty Holistic Doctors Died Suspicious Deaths In the Past Year?

05/03/2017

On 19 June 2015, a controversial doctor named Jeffrey Bradstreet was found dead in a river by a local fisherman from what the local sheriff's office later determined was a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his chest. Bradstreet was an outspoken proponent of the discredited theory that vaccines cause autism, as well as a practitioner of and an evangelist for a fringe remedy derived from human blood known as GcMAF (illegally advertised as a cure for everything from cancer to autism). practitioner evangelist GcMAF His death came just days after his Georgia clinic was raided by the federal agents looking for GcMAF or other unlicensed medical treatments. On the day he was found, a Swiss clinic associated with a company that Bradstreet had frequently promoted and which used GcMAF, was raided after five patients died (though it is not clear if those five patients died from GcMAF or some other cause). raided associated His family, not convinced in the official conclusion that his death was a suicide, hired a private investigator to look for indications of foul play, which provided fodder for internet conspiracy theorists -- many suggested he had been murdered by someone working for the pharmaceutical, medical, and regulatory establishments. hired Erin Elizabeth, the founder of Health Nut News, has taken this sentiment and run with it, arguing that Bradstreets death was not only suspicious, but far from an isolated incident. Her post on Bradstreet provided a gateway into what would become the central focus of her work over the next year and a half -- unraveling the mystery around what she claims are the suspicious deaths of over 60 doctors of holistic medicine. Her post claims Her efforts have caught the attention of countless other conspiracy-minded web sites, including Natural News and Alex Jones InfoWars. Aspects of the narrative are allegedly being developed into a movie, and on 30 April 2017, Elizabeth was featured on an episode of Investigation Discovery Channels Scene of the Crime, with Tony Harris that focused on Bradstreet's death. Natural News InfoWars allegedly on an episode Elizabeth first wrote about Bradstreets death on 23 June 2015, in a post implying (but not demonstrating) there was more to the story than met the eye, and citing Bradstreet's family and friends' doubt over the official cause of death as proof. Building off of the success of that article, Elizabeth has expanded what she calls her unintentional series to include over 50 posts on Health Nut News. wrote Frequent breaking headlines and Elizabeths repeatedly stated fears for the safety of partner, Joseph Mercola, a prominent holistic doctor with an extensive web site, have added a sense of urgency. Her posts, often devoid of details that provide any tangible link between events, almost invariably tie the deaths if not directly, then by not-at-all-subtle innuendo, to the conspiracy narrative created in the Bradstreet story. stated This-bait-and-switch started right away. For example, in her report on the case of chiropractor Bruce Hedendal on 1 July 2015, who was found dead in his car, reportedly of natural causes, she implies (but never expands on) a link to Bradstreet: Bruce Hedendal The second doctor is Dr. Bruce Hedendal, DC, PhD of Boca Roton, Fl. who died suddenly on Fathers Day, leaving behind a beautiful family. Sources tell me that he was found dead in his car; there had been no accident and it wasnt running. He had exercised earlier at an event, but we dont want to speculate as the authorities have yet to rule on his cause of death. [...] Both Dr Hedendal and Dr. Bradstreet had dealt with run ins with the feds in the past. In fact, Dr. Bradstreets office was just raided by the FDA days before he died. In this post, we critically and systematically examine each person that Elizabeth has included in her series to see if suggestions of linked causes or outright conspiracy hold up. In doing so, we demonstrate that Elizabeths series fails to a) coherently articulate the conspiracy, b) consistently utilize the same list of victims, or c) demonstrate any connection between the victims whatsoever. What Is the Conspiracy? Elizabeth, who repeatedly stresses that she has no proof of a connection between any of these cases, generally suggests that there have been a large and underreported number of holistic doctors whose deaths were suspicious or unexplained. In its early iterations in the summer of 2015, the claims suggested a local Florida connection (Bradstreet had moved from Florida to Georgia), as she wrote in the 21 July 2015 post: post Yet another doctor was just found murdered inside his home here on the East Coast of Florida. This makes six doctors to be found dead in the last month, from this region of the country alone. Four out of the six were found dead here in Florida. As the series progressed, however, the geographic and chronologic window widened, with later reports coming from numerous states across the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the Caribbean island of Grenada, and the United Kingdom. Chronologically, the series has expanded retroactively to include incidents that predate Bradstreets death, going back as early as the summer of 2014. incidents summer of 2014 Other aspects of the story that have been broadened with its telling and retelling are the defining characteristics of the alleged victims of the conspiracy. In some cases, the doctors that Elizabeth includes have no connection to holistic medicine whatsoever (despite her headlines), and in other cases the link to holistic medicine is extremely tenuous and based on observations such as liked Facebook pages, veganism, or an openness to preventive medicine. Elizabeth herself does not offer any suggestions or explications for motive, but strongly suggests the link lies within their alternative approach to medicine, as she does in her most recent recap of the series: recap Some of the biggest skeptics, those who rolled their eyes at the first few deaths, are now wondering if there isnt a connection. There have been theories, from GcMAF to CBD oil, but I dont think all doctors used both of these treatments. Im not convinced either is the smoking gun, but might hold part of the answer. There are several unsolved murders here (and some alleged suicides, most still under investigation), and I sincerely hope they get to the bottom of this as again, we knew several of these amazing doctors personally. The dubious (and unsubstantiated) shared connections of GcMAF and CBD oil -- a non-psychoactive component of cannabis used primarily for pain management -- among these doctors is about as close to a motive as you will find on Health Nut News. Still, it has been enough fodder for others to attach their own pet theories tosome conspiracy peddlers focus on GcMAF despite the fact that almost none of the other doctors were involved in it, while others tie the conspiracy more generally to the heavy-handed interference of the federal government. peddlers Who Are the Victims? Elizabeth claims that well over 60 victims, who are mostly holistic doctors have died suspiciously. She has not published a definitive list, but when she recaps the growing list of departed doctors, she posts a photo montage of the alleged victims faces. Without a clear tally from Elizabeth, we took it upon ourselves to generate a list of the doctors whose deaths she has said were suspicious. The task proved complex because many of her reports come with the caveat that they are not part of the official series but are nonetheless included in her photo montage. Elizabeth told us via email that this inconsistency stems from advice she got from a reporter: After talking to a seasoned reporter in NY, I decided he was correct I couldn't pick and choose who to put into this series so I included all of them and usually wrote about right after their deaths were announced. Our list includes 61 doctors (provided for your own fact-checking pleasure on this Google spreadsheet) and is derived from Elizabeths posts, reverse image searches of the collage of victims faces, and discussions with Elizabeth herself. 56 of the doctors on our list come from her collage (which includes two duplicate faces). Elizabeth sent us links to an additional five posts about deaths that she has not yet included in the photo montage. Google spreadsheet As we will show below, of these now 61 doctors, all but five can easily be excluded from any conspiracy attacking alternative medical practice. The remaining five cases, while perhaps not without some intrigue, are far from sufficient proof of of any large scale conspiracy against alternative health practitioners. Elizabeth Herself Has Already Excluded 14 of the 61 Cases As Elizabeths conspiracy claims have expanded, she has taken to posting about deaths that even she admits are not part of her list of dead holistic doctors. Yet, she includes these doctors in her photo montage and has posted about questions surrounding their deaths on Health Nut News. questions These fourteen doctors include five chiropractors who died in car accidents (Chris Coffman, David Knotts, Thomas Eynon, William Snow and Janelle A. Bottorff) introduced with this caveat: five chiropractors this caveat Im not including these officially in my holistic series of doctors who have been found dead or murdered, but have had more than one of their patients write me saying that they would like me to do a story on them. Elizabeth also wrote a post about four doctors (none of whom practiced any form of alternative medicine) killed in accidents (Christopher Spradley, Robert Grossman, Anthony Keene and Dick Versendaal) that come with this caveat: this caveat I dont think these four in accidents were probably foul play. I just included them as a few asked me to. These doctors werent holistic (that I know of- I havent researched) I guess the lesson is that wearing a helmet, even when simply riding a bicycle, doesnt necessarily protect you. It also shows how quickly our lives can be taken away from us or those around us so treasure every moment with your loved ones. Another six posts about individual doctors deaths come with disclaimers or updates admitting that their deaths were not mysterious. Despite that admission, Elizabeth continues to include their faces on her dead doctor collage. These doctors, only three of whom practiced alternative medicine, are Jamie Zimmerman, Nabil El Sanadi, Lorraine Hurley, Kenneth Rich, and Alan Clarke. Jamie Zimmerman Nabil El Sanadi Lorraine Hurley Kenneth Rich Alan Clarke Seven of the Remaining 47 Cases Can Also Be Excluded as Accidents We found another seven cases that are clear and incontrovertible accidents -- though Elizabeth has not admitted as much. This includes John Louis Lombardozzi, a chiropractor killed in a motorcycle accident (listed as suspicious because he was an experienced rider); Wade Shipman, an osteopath who died in a bike accident; John A. Harsch, a holistic doctor killed in a car accident; Thomas Bruff, an occupational medicine doctor who died in a plane crash; Mark Buller, a bioterrorism expert who died after being struck by a car; and surgeon Anita Kurmann, who was killed in a bike accident. Finally, Linnea Veinotte, a researcher who had a teaching post at St. Georges University in Grenada, was killed in a hit-and-run for which the perpetrator later turned himself in. motorcycle accident because osteopath plane crash struck by a car killed in a bike accident researcher turned himself in Fourteen of the Remaining 40 Cases Are Murders Unrelated to a Medical Conspiracy Fourteen of the doctors in Elizabeths series were murdered. Although each case is disturbing, in all but one the likely perpetrator has been identified -- and in the remaining case, the victim was a retiree who clearly posed no threat to the medical establishment. One of the cases Elizabeth most often refers to in hers series is that of Teresa Sievers. Dr. Sievers was involved in holistic medicine and her murder was complex and mysterious enough to be featured on the CBS program 48 hours. However, the investigation ultimately ended in the arrest of her husband on the suspicion that he paid a man to kill her for a life insurance payout. The case is still working its way through the courts. Teresa Sievers featured Another notable case involved the brutal and premeditated killing of a Southern California doctor who combined conventional and holistic medicine, Weidong "Henry" Han. Dr. Han, along with his wife and five year old daughter, were killed by a former business partner for financial gain, as reported by the Associated Press: Weidong "Henry" Han reported A California man was charged Tuesday with murder in the slaughter of the family of a Chinese herbalist, including his 5-year-old daughter, in a crime authorities say might have been caused by a business dispute. Pierre Haobsh, 26, of Oceanside was charged with murder with special circumstances that he used a handgun, killed for financial gain and committed multiple killings. Santa Barbara County prosecutors have not decided whether to seek the death penalty. [...] A loaded gun and property belonging to one of the victims was found inside the car where Haobsh was arrested, Sheriff Bob Brown said last week. As horrific as this event was, the likely perpetrator in this case was known to the victim, making it unlikely to be part of a larger conspiracy. The same can be said about these deaths included in the Health Nut News series: murdered who believed her husband neighbor former employee ex-employee murder-suicide over complaints Three more doctors were murdered in three random acts of violence that, despite involving assailants unknown to the victims, involved either a perpetrator who is now in custody, or a victim not plausibly related to any medical or regulatory conspiracy: turned himself robbery gone wrong unknown assailant Ten of the Remaining 26 Cases Involve People With No Tie to Holistic Medicine In many instances, Elizabeth includes individuals in her series who have no documentable tie to holistic medicine. Among the most tenuous connections to holistic medicine is the case of Cheryl Deboar, who was employed in a non-research role at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and had a degree in chemistry. employed Also notable is the inclusion of Jeffrey Whiteside, a pulmonary/critical care doctor who, despite a complex and potentially mismanaged investigation that ultimately concluded that his death was a suicide, did not practice or have ties to any form of alternative medicine. Elizabeth uses the problems in the investigation to generate suspicion but fails to make any link to a larger narrative about the threat she thinks alternative medical practitioners are facing. potentially mismanaged a suicide generate suspicion Other tenuous connections included in this category: connection clinical cancer researcher connection chief of anesthesiology no proffered tie connection junior doctor strike excessive sweating integrative medicine two weeks connects clear suicide 11 of the Remaining 16 Cases Cannot Plausibly Be Considered Suspicious In ten of the remaining cases, the cause of death is known and generally accepted. This includes the death of Alfredo "Dr. Sebi" Bowman, an alternative health guru and traditional healer who died in an Honduran jail where he was being held on money laundering charges. Bowman was an important figure in the alternative health world, but conditions in Honduran prisons are notoriously harsh, crowded, and unsanitary, making it unsurprising that an 82 year-old with pneumonia did not survive his detention there. died in an Honduran jail notoriously Similarly, 56 year-old anesthesiologist and libertarian presidential candidate Mark Feldman, who was anti-vaccine, died in a motel where he was found by an unidentified woman. Authorities determined that his death was caused by a heart attack. heart attack In other cases, Elizabeth barely makes an attempt to draw the deaths of these individuals into a larger narrative, as with chiropractor Armon Burt the victim of a heart attack whose inclusion in the series stems from Elizabeths barely-articulated hunches that minor details surrounding his death are strange: details Dr. Armon Bert, who was reported missing by his family, was found in his car in the parking lot of a Kirkwood Lowes store (St Louis suburb), the apparent victim of a heart attack (how do they clock his death at exactly 10:04 AM if they found him in the car?). The remaining cases here are those in which Elizabeth challenges the reader to prove a negative that there is not evidence that it wasnt suspicious without providing any tangible evidence that there is cause to doubt the official cause of death: obituary clearly states died of a heart attack learned about found dead took his life Finally, Rod Floyd, a professor at Palmer College of Chiropractic, whose suicide Elizabeth casts doubt on by saying that she heard things but is unable to elaborate on them as even [she] doesnt know all the details. There is no verifiable evidence of foul play in his death. unable Five Cases Involving Holistic Doctors Remain After eliminating the above 55 doctors from the official unintended series, we are left with only five cases involving individuals who practiced some form of alternative medicine and whose death could arguably (though this is a stretch) look suspicious. This includes the death of Jeffrey Bradstreet (discussed earlier), the incident that spawned this whole series in the first place. Elizabeth includes another indisputably prominent figure in the alternative medicine scene, Mitchell Gaynor, in her series. As with Bradstreet, Gaynors death was ruled a suicide, which Elizabeth questions for spurious reasons. She argues that Gaynor, who supplemented his traditional treatment with natural remedies, wouldnt have committed suicide because he had recently beat the flu and survived a car accident: argues Im confused because his close friend and patient (also a doctor) told me that they were told he had walked away from a car accident, but then days later he was found in the woods at his country home in Upstate New York. Im also confused because posts on his personal Facebook page (which you might only be able to see if you are friends with him or have mutual friends) had colleagues saying that they were so sorry he missed the conference he was supposed to attend last weekend because allegedly he said he had the intestinal flu. So, lets say the information we were given was true. Lets say he survived a car accident (we dont know the details yet) and walked away from it, then he gets the intestinal flu (apparently survives that too) and then kills himself (allegedly in the woods at his country home, according to a patient and friend)? We are unsure what these details have to do with his state of mind, but it should be noted that surviving both the flu and a car accident are not necessarily indicators of mental health. The other notable figure is Nick Gonzalez, an oncologist who practiced controversial and unproven alternative cancer treatments. Gonzalez died at age 67 of cardiac-related issues. His death sparked its own conspiracy theories and memes, as he once joked that pharmaceutical companies might target him for his work, as Vitality Magazine reported: reported The keynote speaker at this years Whole Life Expo is Dr. Nicholas Gonzalez of New York, one of a small number of doctors whose success in treating cancer exceeds that of mainstream oncology by a wide margin. His work thereby puts the lie to pharmaceutical propaganda that fuels a cancer industry bringing in hundreds of billions of dollars while fooling millions of desperate and bewildered patients. Ive been told drug companies know about my work but hope I get hit by a bus, Dr. Gonzalez observes wryly. The two remaining cases included here involve people who had connections to holistic medicine, but were far from national figures in the movement and could barely be considered primary targets for a hit job: found in his car disputed his patients These five cases, and perhaps even some suicides mentioned above, form a kind of Rorschach Test if you are looking for evidence of a plot against alternative medical practitioners, you will likely be drawn to them. However, recognizing that nearly every story included in Elizabeths unintended series is demonstrably unrelated to each other means that any conspiracy made must be crafted from the deaths of three prominent doctors -- plus two doctors who, despite having experience with alternative medicine, were not national figures or a plausible threat to any medical establishment. A Collection of Unrelated Tragedies As we reported in the earliest debunking of this conspiracy theory, between 6,500 and 8,200 doctors can be expected to die each year in the United States alone. These five deaths over the span of a year and a half, from a statistical standpoint, are not abnormal. Further, outside of vaguely defined philosophical beliefs, there is absolutely no connection between any of them. reported In fact, amongst the whole series, the only true defining similarity between all the cases described on Health Nut News is that Elizabeth promises to keep people updated on their developments if they join her email list. Because the claim of over 60 dead doctors cannot be demonstrated even by Elizabeth herself, and because nearly all of the cases she uses can be easily excluded from a larger conspiracy, we rate the claim as false. There is no conspiracy afoot. Instead, there are simply 61 individual tragedies that have been inelegantly strung together by an alternative health website whose not-so-subtle innuendo has subsequently echoed through the darkest and most paranoid corners of the internet -- and which has begun to leak into mainstream media outlets as well. Carpender, Heather. "Body Located in Rocky Broad River in Chimney Rock Identified." WHNS-TV [Greenville, SC].. 23 Jun 2015. Cave, Rachel. "Grenada Man Accused in Death of Linnea Veinotte May Not Go to Trial Until 2017." CBC News. 4 August 2016. Czebiniak, Madasyn. "Doctor, 64, Found Dead in Her Home in Sharon." Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 13 August 2015. Debbie, Samantha. "Doctors Murdered After Discovering Cancer Enzymes in Vaccines." Natural News. 19 September 2016. Gills, Wendy, and Sarah-Joyce Battersy. "Murder Charge Upgraded to First-Degree in Ryerson Prof Stabbing." The Star. 7 January 2016. Grant, Megan. "Jin Qing Huang Found Fit to Stand Trial on Murder Charge in Death of Tiejun Huang." CBC News. 26 August 2016. Helling, Steve. "Georgia Woman on Vacation in Grenada Killed on Beach by Sword-Wielding Man." People. 26 January 2016. Smith, Jim. "Man Wanted in Vicious Plymouth Murder of Quincy College Professor." WBZ-TV [Boston]. 7 May 2015. Sparks, John. "Arrest Made in Death of Dr. Ronald Schwartz of Jupiter." WPTV [Palm Beach, FL]. 5 January 2016. Parker, Micaela. "Hearing Reveals Details in Case of Woman Charged with Killing Boss." [Utica] Observer-Dispatch. 28 September 2016. Miller, Michael, E. "The Mysterious Death of a Doctor Who Peddled Autism Cures to Thousands." The Washington Post. 26 July 2015. Moriarty, Erin. "Eleven Hundred Miles to Murder." CBS News. 18 February 2017. Mott, Kristen. "Beachwood Doctor Died from Natural Causes." Cleveland Jewish News. 19 August 2016. Neely, Chanda. "Cleveland Clinic Doc Who Sought Libertarian Party Presidential Bid Found Dead in Brook Park Motel." Cleveland.com. 23 June 2016. Pologod. "Dr. Sebi Dies in Police Custody in Honduras." The Source. 8 August 2016. Salinger, Tobias. "Georgia Boxer 'Terrible Thomas' Charged in Death of His Wife Weeks After Allegedly Assaulting Her: Reports." [New York] Daily News. 21 July 2015 Sarich, Christina. "Another Alternative Health Doctor Killed, Found in Makeshift Grave." InfoWars. 28 December 2015. Sott, Geraldine. "Doctor Who Was Found Dead in Old Buckenham Had Taken Drugs Which Could Be in Levels Considered Lethal." Eastern Daily Press. 9 February 2017. Walsh, Paul. "Autopsy: Alcohol a Factor in Fatal Fall of HCMC Doctor Found Along I-94." [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 7 January 2016. Texas Chiropractic Association. "Longview Chiropractor Dies in Wreck; Children Injured." 1 June 2014 Erie Times-News. "Dr. John Louis Lombardozzi." 1 June 2016 KOTV [Tulsa]. "Prominent Tulsa Physician Kills Himself." 30 October 2015 KENS-TV [San Antonio]. "DPS: Body Found in Kendall Co. Identified as Missing Boerne Doctor." 6 April 2016. KABC-TV. "Is Dr. Sievers' Homicide Tied to Other Doctors' Deaths?" 6 July 2015. stopthethyroidmadness.com. "Lyme Sucks!! In Loving Memory of Paige Adams, FNP, B-C." 2 February 2016. The News and Observer. "Life Stories: Raleighs Baron Holt Known as a Faithful Healer." 12 July 2016 BBC News. "Junior Doctors' Row: The Dispute Explained" 6 April 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Famous Autism Researcher and Doctor, Jeff Bradstreet, MD, Died of Alleged Self Inflicted Gunshot Wound to Chest and Found in a River." Health Nut News. 23 June 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "3rd Alternative, Prominent Doctor From Florida Found Dead in 2 Weeks." Health Nut News. 1 July 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "2 More Doctors Go Missing, After 3 Found Dead in 2 Weeks" Health Nut News. 5 July 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "Breaking: 4th Doctor (DO) Found Dead, Gunshot Wound to Head." Health Nut News. 14 July 2015. Elizabeth, Erin. "5th Holistic Doctor (age 33) Died in Florida Making 5 Dead and 5 More Missing." Health Nut News. 14 July 2015. Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic and Fit Dentist, 41, Found Dead of Massive Heart Attack While Jogging." Health Nut News. 21 July 2015. Elizabeth, Erin. "5 Chiropractors Die in Accidents in Recent Months, 3 Single Car." Health Nut News. 1 August 2015. Elizabeth, Erin. "Fit Vegan Cardiologist Dies in Freak Accident, Florida MD Dies While Jogging Saturday & More," Health Nut News. 3 August 2015. Elizabeth, Erin. "10th Doctor (Osteopath) Found Slain in Her Home." Health Nut News. 14 August Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic MD Nick Gonzalez, Who Died Suddenly, Said Hed Heard Big Pharma Hoped Hed Get Hit by a Bus." Health Nut News. 21 August 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "NY Times Announces 11th Holistic Doctors Death as Suicide?" Health Nut News. 18 September 2015. Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic New York MD Hit & Killed by Intoxicated Driver in Long Island" Health Nut News. 11 October 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "Twelfth Holistic Doctor Found Dead, Alleged Suicide" Health Nut News. 11 October 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "Thirteenth Holistic Doctor (MD, PhD) Dies Allegedly Jumped from 20th floor." Health Nut News. 30 October 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "2 Doctors Walking Home, Both Found Dead, One Stabbed to Death in "Safe Neighborhood." Health Nut News. 19 December 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "Canadian Doctor Killed, Body Found in Makeshift Grave" Health Nut News. 23 December 2015 Elizabeth, Erin. "Florida Doctor & Broward Health Chief & President, Found Dead from Alleged Suicide" Health Nut News. 24 January 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic MD & Anesthetist Attacked on Beach by Man w/Sword." Health Nut News. 26 January 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Local Florida Holistic Doctor (& Our Friend) Found Dead, He Was Healthy & Hearty. Health Nut News. 26 January 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Dr Bradstreets Colleague (& My Friend/Neighbor) Found Dead in Florida." Health Nut News. 1 February 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Top Leading Cancer Scientist Found Dead in Tree in Fetish Body Suit." Health Nut News. 14 February 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Researcher at Famous Cancer Center Found in Woods Ruled Suicide, But No One Buying It." Health Nut News. 14 February 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "NBC: Marshall Investigator Has 100% Confirmation Doctors Death Was a Set-Up." Health Nut News. 27 February 2016. Elizabeth, Erin. "34 Year Old Doctor/Cancer Researcher Found Dead in Field." Health Nut News. 19 March 2016. Elizabeth, Erin. "ABC: Holistic Doctor & Family Killed in Horrific Triple Murder at Santa Barbara Estate." Health Nut News. 25 March 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Another Holistic Doctor Killed" Health Nut News. 7 April 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Another Doctor, 25 y/o, Mysteriously Found Dead in Body of Water No Witnesses." Health Nut News. 2 May 2016. Elizabeth, Erin. "Alternative & Holistic MD, John Hicks, Has Died" Health Nut News. 3 May 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic Doctor/Professor Found Stabbed to Death in Her Home." Health Nut News. 11 May 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic Doctor Found Dead After Missing for Weeks" Health Nut News. 13 May 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. Yet Another Doctor Found Dead in Plane Crash" Health Nut News. 18 May 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Prominent NY Holistic Doctor Found Dead of Alleged Suicide" Health Nut News. 11 June 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "NBC: NY Holistic Doctor Thought to Have Died Naturally Was Poisoned" Health Nut News. 14 February 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Murder Suicide: Gunman Kills Holistic Doctor, Then Himself" Health Nut News. 15 June 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Another Holistic Doctor (MD) Murdered at His Clinic, 2 Doctors in 2 Days" Health Nut News. 17 June 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "32 y/o Holistic Doctor Dies of Apparent Heart Attack at Her Home" Health Nut News. 23 June 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic Doctor Found Dead in Parking Lot Before Seminar" Health Nut News. 5 July 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Breaking: Renowned Holistic Doctor Found Stabbed to Death in Her Palo Alto Home." Health Nut News. 17 July 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "MD Found Murdered Inside Florida Home Today." Health Nut News. 21 July 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic Doctor and Inventor Killed in Accident" Health Nut News. 25 July 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "The Truth of Holistic Celebrity Dr Sebis Death." Health Nut News. 6 August 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic MD Killed in What Appears to Be a Tragic Accident (RIP)" Health Nut News. 5 October 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Holistic Doctor Death Series: Over 60 Dead in Just Over a Year" Health Nut News. 12 March 2016. Elizabeth, Erin. "Breaking: Outspoken Holistic Doctor Allegedly Commits Suicide on Mothers Day" Health Nut News. 13 May 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Breaking: Another Holistic Florida MD Found Dead." Health Nut News. 24 November 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "ABC: Holistic Doctor Found Dead in His Natural Health Clinic, Police Investigate as Homicide." Health Nut News. 4 March 2017 Elizabeth, Erin. "Another Holistic Doctor Shot in His Clinic, Dies Hours Later." Health Nut News. 17 March 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Famous MD Jumps Off George Washington Bridge to His Death in NYC." Health Nut News. 13 February 2016 Elizabeth, Erin. "Doctor Killed on Riverview Drive Was Slu Professor, Expert on Bioterrorism." Health Nut News. 24 February 2016 YourCaring. "Support for Kristina and Lucas in Loving Memory of Jyrki." Coral Springs Funeral Home. "Obituary for Laura Elizabeth Skellchock." Christensen, Doreen. "Never Let Them See You Sweat: 4 Ways to Plug Up That Damp Domain Under Arms." Sun Sentinel. 2 July 2012 Draaisma, Muriel. "Chiropractor Slain in Burlington Had 'Biggest Smile in the Room." CBC News. 25 March 2015 Associated Press. "Widower Accused of Killing Naturopathic Doctor After Wifes Cancer Death." 10 March 2017 Annese, John. "ABC News Doctor's Ex-husband Dies in Jump from George Washington Bridge." [New York] Daily News. 13 February 2017 Saint Louis University. "Mark Buller, Ph.D.: 1949-2017." February 2017 Correction [26 March 2018]: An earlier version of this story incorrectly referred to Jessica Colker as Jessica Corker.

False

On 19 June 2015, a controversial doctor named Jeffrey Bradstreet was found dead in a river by a local fisherman from what the local sheriff's office later determined was a self-inflicted gunshot wound to his chest. Bradstreet was an outspoken proponent of the discredited theory that vaccines cause autism, as well as a practitioner of and an evangelist for a fringe remedy derived from human blood known as GcMAF (illegally advertised as a cure for everything from cancer to autism).His death came just days after his Georgia clinic was raided by the federal agents looking for GcMAF or other unlicensed medical treatments. On the day he was found, a Swiss clinic associated with a company that Bradstreet had frequently promoted and which used GcMAF, was raided after five patients died (though it is not clear if those five patients died from GcMAF or some other cause).His family, not convinced in the official conclusion that his death was a suicide, hired a private investigator to look for indications of foul play, which provided fodder for internet conspiracy theorists -- many suggested he had been murdered by someone working for the pharmaceutical, medical, and regulatory establishments.Erin Elizabeth, the founder of Health Nut News, has taken this sentiment and run with it, arguing that Bradstreets death was not only suspicious, but far from an isolated incident. Her post on Bradstreet provided a gateway into what would become the central focus of her work over the next year and a half -- unraveling the mystery around what she claims are the suspicious deaths of over 60 doctors of holistic medicine.Her efforts have caught the attention of countless other conspiracy-minded web sites, including Natural News and Alex Jones InfoWars. Aspects of the narrative are allegedly being developed into a movie, and on 30 April 2017, Elizabeth was featured on an episode of Investigation Discovery Channels Scene of the Crime, with Tony Harris that focused on Bradstreet's death.Elizabeth first wrote about Bradstreets death on 23 June 2015, in a post implying (but not demonstrating) there was more to the story than met the eye, and citing Bradstreet's family and friends' doubt over the official cause of death as proof. Building off of the success of that article, Elizabeth has expanded what she calls her unintentional series to include over 50 posts on Health Nut News.Frequent breaking headlines and Elizabeths repeatedly stated fears for the safety of partner, Joseph Mercola, a prominent holistic doctor with an extensive web site, have added a sense of urgency. Her posts, often devoid of details that provide any tangible link between events, almost invariably tie the deaths if not directly, then by not-at-all-subtle innuendo, to the conspiracy narrative created in the Bradstreet story.This-bait-and-switch started right away. For example, in her report on the case of chiropractor Bruce Hedendal on 1 July 2015, who was found dead in his car, reportedly of natural causes, she implies (but never expands on) a link to Bradstreet:Elizabeth, who repeatedly stresses that she has no proof of a connection between any of these cases, generally suggests that there have been a large and underreported number of holistic doctors whose deaths were suspicious or unexplained. In its early iterations in the summer of 2015, the claims suggested a local Florida connection (Bradstreet had moved from Florida to Georgia), as she wrote in the 21 July 2015 post:As the series progressed, however, the geographic and chronologic window widened, with later reports coming from numerous states across the U.S., Canada and Mexico, the Caribbean island of Grenada, and the United Kingdom. Chronologically, the series has expanded retroactively to include incidents that predate Bradstreets death, going back as early as the summer of 2014.Elizabeth herself does not offer any suggestions or explications for motive, but strongly suggests the link lies within their alternative approach to medicine, as she does in her most recent recap of the series:The dubious (and unsubstantiated) shared connections of GcMAF and CBD oil -- a non-psychoactive component of cannabis used primarily for pain management -- among these doctors is about as close to a motive as you will find on Health Nut News. Still, it has been enough fodder for others to attach their own pet theories tosome conspiracy peddlers focus on GcMAF despite the fact that almost none of the other doctors were involved in it, while others tie the conspiracy more generally to the heavy-handed interference of the federal government.Our list includes 61 doctors (provided for your own fact-checking pleasure on this Google spreadsheet) and is derived from Elizabeths posts, reverse image searches of the collage of victims faces, and discussions with Elizabeth herself. 56 of the doctors on our list come from her collage (which includes two duplicate faces). Elizabeth sent us links to an additional five posts about deaths that she has not yet included in the photo montage.As Elizabeths conspiracy claims have expanded, she has taken to posting about deaths that even she admits are not part of her list of dead holistic doctors. Yet, she includes these doctors in her photo montage and has posted about questions surrounding their deaths on Health Nut News.These fourteen doctors include five chiropractors who died in car accidents (Chris Coffman, David Knotts, Thomas Eynon, William Snow and Janelle A. Bottorff) introduced with this caveat:Elizabeth also wrote a post about four doctors (none of whom practiced any form of alternative medicine) killed in accidents (Christopher Spradley, Robert Grossman, Anthony Keene and Dick Versendaal) that come with this caveat:Another six posts about individual doctors deaths come with disclaimers or updates admitting that their deaths were not mysterious. Despite that admission, Elizabeth continues to include their faces on her dead doctor collage. These doctors, only three of whom practiced alternative medicine, are Jamie Zimmerman, Nabil El Sanadi, Lorraine Hurley, Kenneth Rich, and Alan Clarke.We found another seven cases that are clear and incontrovertible accidents -- though Elizabeth has not admitted as much. This includes John Louis Lombardozzi, a chiropractor killed in a motorcycle accident (listed as suspicious because he was an experienced rider); Wade Shipman, an osteopath who died in a bike accident; John A. Harsch, a holistic doctor killed in a car accident; Thomas Bruff, an occupational medicine doctor who died in a plane crash; Mark Buller, a bioterrorism expert who died after being struck by a car; and surgeon Anita Kurmann, who was killed in a bike accident. Finally, Linnea Veinotte, a researcher who had a teaching post at St. Georges University in Grenada, was killed in a hit-and-run for which the perpetrator later turned himself in.One of the cases Elizabeth most often refers to in hers series is that of Teresa Sievers. Dr. Sievers was involved in holistic medicine and her murder was complex and mysterious enough to be featured on the CBS program 48 hours. However, the investigation ultimately ended in the arrest of her husband on the suspicion that he paid a man to kill her for a life insurance payout. The case is still working its way through the courts.Another notable case involved the brutal and premeditated killing of a Southern California doctor who combined conventional and holistic medicine, Weidong "Henry" Han. Dr. Han, along with his wife and five year old daughter, were killed by a former business partner for financial gain, as reported by the Associated Press:In many instances, Elizabeth includes individuals in her series who have no documentable tie to holistic medicine. Among the most tenuous connections to holistic medicine is the case of Cheryl Deboar, who was employed in a non-research role at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, and had a degree in chemistry.Also notable is the inclusion of Jeffrey Whiteside, a pulmonary/critical care doctor who, despite a complex and potentially mismanaged investigation that ultimately concluded that his death was a suicide, did not practice or have ties to any form of alternative medicine. Elizabeth uses the problems in the investigation to generate suspicion but fails to make any link to a larger narrative about the threat she thinks alternative medical practitioners are facing.In ten of the remaining cases, the cause of death is known and generally accepted. This includes the death of Alfredo "Dr. Sebi" Bowman, an alternative health guru and traditional healer who died in an Honduran jail where he was being held on money laundering charges. Bowman was an important figure in the alternative health world, but conditions in Honduran prisons are notoriously harsh, crowded, and unsanitary, making it unsurprising that an 82 year-old with pneumonia did not survive his detention there.Similarly, 56 year-old anesthesiologist and libertarian presidential candidate Mark Feldman, who was anti-vaccine, died in a motel where he was found by an unidentified woman. Authorities determined that his death was caused by a heart attack.In other cases, Elizabeth barely makes an attempt to draw the deaths of these individuals into a larger narrative, as with chiropractor Armon Burt the victim of a heart attack whose inclusion in the series stems from Elizabeths barely-articulated hunches that minor details surrounding his death are strange:Finally, Rod Floyd, a professor at Palmer College of Chiropractic, whose suicide Elizabeth casts doubt on by saying that she heard things but is unable to elaborate on them as even [she] doesnt know all the details. There is no verifiable evidence of foul play in his death.Elizabeth includes another indisputably prominent figure in the alternative medicine scene, Mitchell Gaynor, in her series. As with Bradstreet, Gaynors death was ruled a suicide, which Elizabeth questions for spurious reasons. She argues that Gaynor, who supplemented his traditional treatment with natural remedies, wouldnt have committed suicide because he had recently beat the flu and survived a car accident:The other notable figure is Nick Gonzalez, an oncologist who practiced controversial and unproven alternative cancer treatments. Gonzalez died at age 67 of cardiac-related issues. His death sparked its own conspiracy theories and memes, as he once joked that pharmaceutical companies might target him for his work, as Vitality Magazine reported:As we reported in the earliest debunking of this conspiracy theory, between 6,500 and 8,200 doctors can be expected to die each year in the United States alone. These five deaths over the span of a year and a half, from a statistical standpoint, are not abnormal. Further, outside of vaguely defined philosophical beliefs, there is absolutely no connection between any of them.

FMD_train_269

Theodore Roosevelt on Immigration

04/11/2006

Theodore Roosevelt's ideas on immigrants and being an American in 1907 are as follows: "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming, in every facet, an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language. We have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is a loyalty to the American people." Theodore Roosevelt was about to finish his first two-year term as governor of the state of New York when the Republican Party chose him as its candidate for vice president in the 1900 national election. The Republicans were victorious at the ballot box that year, but Roosevelt held the vice-presidency for less than a year before he was elevated to the White House upon the assassination of President William McKinley on September 14, 1901, thereby becoming the youngest person ever to hold the office of President of the United States. Roosevelt was elected to a full term as president in 1904, and among his many notable achievements was his selection as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for his part in the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905. Although Roosevelt did not hold public office again after leaving the presidency in 1909 (his efforts to regain the White House as a third-party candidate in 1912 proving unsuccessful), he remained active in the public political sphere. In the waning years of his life, as World War I raged in Europe and America entered the conflict on the side of the Allies, he frequently spoke of his belief that immigrants taking up residence in the U.S. should assimilate into American society as quickly as possible, learn the English language, eschew hyphenated national identities (e.g., "Italian-American"), and declare their primary national allegiance to the United States of America. On February 1, 1916, for example, Roosevelt advocated measures for strengthening and ensuring the "loyalty" of American immigrants. Speaking at a luncheon given by Mrs. Vincent Astor for the National Americanization Committee in the Astor Court Building, he declared that one of the reasons why many German-Americans have shown greater love for their native land than for their adopted country is that the German system demands greater loyalty than is demanded in this country, and a greater contribution to the common welfare. "And all of you know I am free from a taint of neutrality," he added, "so I can say this without suspicion." The encouragement of better housing conditions and a compulsion to learn the English language, Colonel Roosevelt said, would help the process of Americanization. "We cannot make the Americanization movement a success," Colonel Roosevelt said, "unless we approach it from the economic standpoint. It is true that governmentally Germany is an autocracy. But there has been a great deal more industrial freedom there than in many of our old industrial communities. The German Government says we expect you to work out good results, to get together with the laborer, and yourselves decide what you are going to pay to the doctors who are to pass upon the health of the employees, and the amount of damages any employee merits. The Government insists upon a great amount of self-government by the people themselves. "I feel that by insisting upon proper housing conditions we shall indirectly approach this. I want to see the immigrant know that he has got to spend a certain amount of his money on decent housing; that he will not be allowed to live on a $2.50 per month board basis. "Let us say to the immigrant not that we hope he will learn English, but that he has got to learn it. Let the immigrant who does not learn it go back. He has got to consider the interest of the United States or he should not stay here. He must be made to see that his opportunities in this country depend upon his knowing English and observing American standards. The employer cannot be permitted to regard him only as an industrial asset. "We must in every way possible encourage the immigrant to rise, help him up, and give him a chance to help himself. If we try to carry him, he may well prove not worth carrying. We must, in turn, insist upon his showing the same standard of fealty to this country and joining with us in raising the level of our common American citizenship. "If I could, I would have the kind of restriction which would not allow any immigrant to come here unless I was content that his grandchildren would be fellow citizens of my grandchildren. They will not be so if he lives in a boarding house at $2.50 per month with ten other boarders and contracts tuberculosis, contributing to the next generation a body of citizens inferior not only morally and spiritually but also physically." A few months later, Roosevelt expanded on this theme in a series of Memorial Day speeches he delivered in St. Louis. Moral treason to the United States was charged by Mr. Roosevelt, in an address delivered before the City Club, against German-Americans who seek to make their governmental representatives act in the interests of Germany rather than this country. He characterized the German-American Alliance as "an anti-American alliance," but added that he believed its members "not only do not represent but scandalously misrepresent" the great majority of real Americans of German origin. Using the motto "America for Americans" for all Americans, whether they were born here or abroad, the former President declared that "the salvation of our people lies in having a nationalized and unified America, ready for the tremendous tasks of both war and peace." "I appeal to all our citizens," the colonel said, "no matter from what land their forefathers came, to keep this ever in mind, and to shun with scorn and contempt the sinister intriguers and mischief-makers who would seek to divide them along lines of creed, or birthplace, or national origin." Col. Roosevelt said he came to St. Louis to speak on Americanism to condemn the use of the hyphen "whenever it represents an effort to form political parties along racial lines or to bring pressure to bear on parties and politicians, not for American purposes, but in the interest of some group of voters of a certain national origin or of the country from which they or their fathers came." He was equally against the native American of the wrong kind and for the immigrant of the right kind, the former President declared, but the immigrant who did not become, in good faith, an American "is out of place" in the United States. He said each nation should be judged by its conduct and that the United States should oppose encroachment on its own rights, whether Germany, England, France, or Russia be guilty of misconduct. "The effort to keep our citizenship divided against itself," the colonel continued, "by the use of the hyphen and along the lines of national origin is certain to breed a spirit of bitterness, prejudice, and dislike between great bodies of our citizens. If some citizens band together as German-Americans or Irish-Americans, then after a while others are certain to band together as English-Americans or Scandinavian-Americans, and every such banding together, every attempt to make for political purposes a German-American alliance or a Scandinavian-American alliance, means, at the bottom, an effort against the interest of straight-out American citizenship, an effort to bring into our nation the bitter Old World rivalries, jealousies, and hatreds." In a Fourth of July speech in 1917, Roosevelt urged the adoption of linguistic uniformity, including a requirement that all foreign-language newspapers published in the U.S. should also include English translations. Touching on the matter of language, Col. Roosevelt declared that "We must have in this country but one flag, and for the speech of the people but one language, the English language. During the present war, all newspapers published in German, or in the speech of any of our foes, should be required to publish, side by side with the foreign text, columns in English containing the exact translation of everything said in the foreign language. Ultimately, this should be done with all newspapers published in foreign languages in this country." Likewise, on May 27, 1918, Roosevelt urged in a speech at Des Moines, Iowa, that English be the sole language of instruction used in American schools. English as the sole language for schools, newspapers, and other usage in this country was urged by Theodore Roosevelt in an address here tonight under the direction of the National Security League. In voicing his approval of the recent proclamation by Gov. Harding, ordering that English be the only medium of instruction in public or private schools in Iowa, Col. Roosevelt said: "This is a nation, not a polyglot boarding house. There is not room in the country for any 50-50 American, nor can there be but one loyalty to the Stars and Stripes." The comments quoted at the head of the page are more in the same vein; excerpts not from a statement made by Theodore Roosevelt in 1907 (while he was still President), but from a letter written shortly before his death in January 1919, just a few months after the armistice that ended the fighting in World War I: NEW YORK, Jan. 6. What was the last public statement by Col. Roosevelt was read last night at an "All-American concert" here under the auspices of the American Defense Society, of which he was honorary president. "I cannot be with you, and so all I can do is to wish you Godspeed," it read. "There may be no sagging back in the fight for Americanism merely because the war is over. "There are plenty of persons who have already made the assertion that they believe the American people have a short memory and that they intend to revive all the foreign associations which more directly interfere with the complete Americanization of our people. Our principle in this matter should be absolutely simple. "In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here does in good faith become an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the man's becoming, in very fact, an American and nothing but an American. "If he tries to keep segregated with men of his own origin and separated from the rest of America, then he isn't doing his part as an American. "We have room for but one flag, the American flag, and this excludes the red flag which symbolizes all wars against liberty and civilization just as much as it excludes any foreign flag of a nation to which we are hostile. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language, for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, and American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house; and we have room for but one sole loyalty, and that is loyalty to the American people."

True

Theodore Roosevelt was about to finish his first two-year term as governor of the state of New York when the Republican Party chose him as its candidate for vice president in the 1900 national election. The Republicans were victorious at the ballot box that year, but Roosevelt held the vice-presidency for less than a year before he was elevated to the White House upon the assassination of President William McKinley on 14 September 1901, thereby becoming the youngest person ever to hold the office of President of the United States. Roosevelt was elected to a full term as president in 1904, and among his many notable achievements was his selection as a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate for his part in the negotiations leading to the Treaty of Portsmouth that ended the Russo-Japanese War in 1905.A copy of this letter, obtained from the Manuscript Division of the Library of Congress, can be viewed here.

FMD_train_33

PG&E/Atmos Phishing Scam

01/09/2014

Phishing bait: Billing statements from PG&E and Atmos Energy. SCAM Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2014] Comment: I received two emails like this. I don't have an account with PG&E, nor do I use gas. I didn't click, just in case that's how they get their info. Any insight would be appreciated. PG&E ENERGY STATEMENT Account No: 441401665-1 Statement Date: 01/07/2014 Due Date: 02/01/2014 Your Account Summary Amount Due on Previous Statement $344.70 Payment(s) Received Since Last Statement 0 Previous Unpaid Balance $344.70 Current Electric Charges $165.20 Current Gas Charges $49.20 To view your most recent bill, please click here. You must log in to your account or register for an online account to view your statement. Total Amount Due BY 02/01/2014 $559.70 Origins: In January 2014, Internet users began receiving messages like the one reproduced above that purported to be energy statements (i.e., utility bills) from Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E). Such messages included instructions for the recipients to follow a hyperlink or open an attachment in order to view their statements and/or register for an online account. These messages were intended to lure recipients, concerned about receiving unexpected bills, into attempting to view the referenced statements—a process that would lead them not to a document but into launching an executable file. Similar messages have also been sent out in the name of Atmos Energy, and that company has posted a warning on their website advising customers that: "As an Atmos Energy e-Bill customer, you are accustomed to receiving your monthly bill notice by email. We would like to inform you of a widespread email scam that portrays a bogus Atmos Energy bill. The emails have been sent to individuals nationwide, including Atmos Energy customers. The 'phishing' message references a fake account number and contains links to fraudulent websites. The email provides links to mislead you into believing you are going to view your bill, learn more about natural gas, or view bill inserts. Actually, the links lead you to a compromised website that hides malware. We are asking anyone who receives that deceptive email to delete it immediately and not click on any links." PG&E has also posted a warning on their site advising consumers to "Please be alert to an email scam using PG&E's name," with a link to an article about confirming contact from PG&E: "Individuals and companies are posing as PG&E employees or contractors to gain access to your account information or entry into your home. Here are ways to protect your home or business. You should always ask to see

False

Similar messages have been sent out in the name of Atmos Energy as well, and that company has posted a warning on their web site and advised customers that:PG&E has also posted a warning on their site advising consumers to "Please be alert to an email scam using PG&E's name," with a link to an article about confirming contact from PG&E:

FMD_train_43

What We Know About the Cancer-Detecting Blood Test

09/13/2021

In September 2021, British health officials announced the launch of the worlds largest trial of a blood test capable of detecting more than 50 types of cancer before symptoms appear. 50 types of cancer Headed by The Cancer Research UK, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, and Kings College London, the so-named Galleri trial aims to recruit 140,000 volunteers across eight areas of England. Galleri checks for the earliest signs of cancer. If it's successful, its ability to catch cancer during its earliest stages could be a game-changer in the fight against the disease. NHS Kings College London This quick and simple blood test could mark the beginning of a revolution in cancer detection and treatment here and around the world, said NHS Chief Executive Amanda Pritchard in a news release. By finding cancer before signs and symptoms even appear, we have the best chance of treating it and we can give people the best possible chance of survival. news release While its early cancer detection ability holds promise, Galleri does not diagnose cancer and does not detect all forms of the disease. Blood drawn from a participant is tested for chemical changes in fragments of the bloods genetic code known as cell-free DNA (cfDNA), which leaks from tumors into the bloodstream. Previous research conducted by Galleri founding company Grail showed that the test was effective at finding cancers that are difficult to identify early on, like head and neck, bowel, lung, pancreatic, and throat cancers. As of this writing, Galleri is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but was granted a breakthrough device designation in 2019 under a government-led voluntary program for certain medical devices "that provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions." The test joins two other similar tumor-testing tests that were approved in the U.S., according to the consumer publication Evaluate. Galleri is available in the U.S. for $949, and is available for prescription only. Because it is new to the market and does not have FDA approval, the test is not covered by health insurance. Galleri granted breakthrough device Evaluate prescription only Galleri is designed to detect more than 50 types of cancer. Grail Grail Galleri doesnt rule out cancer, but instead helps providers to evaluate and confirm whether and where cancer may exist. It is intended to be used in coordination with other screening practices and is not a replacement but rather a method to inform the next steps of diagnosis. For the British trial, tens of thousands of recruitments between the ages of 50 and 77 those most at risk for cancer will be asked to give blood samples at mobile testing clinics across the country. Regardless of their results, the test is designed to detect cancer signals such as cfDNA and predict where in the body those signals exist. Half of the participants in the randomized control trial will have blood samples screened with the test right away, while the other half will have their sample stored and tested in the future. This will allow researchers to compare the stage at which cancer is detected between the two groups. Regardless, study participants will be notified if their test signals potential cancer. Early cancer detection during stage one or two allows for more treatment options, some of which can be less aggressive and harmful. Patients whose cancer is identified at the earliest stage may see up to ten times the survival rate compared to a person who learned of cancer at stage four. Those who give blood as part of the British trial will be invited to participate in later stages of the trial one and two years later. Initial results are expected by 2021 and if successful, researchers plan to extend the rollout to 1 million people by 2025. Sources GRAIL Announces Significant Progress with Multi-Cancer Early Detection Test Including FDA Breakthrough Device Designation. GRAIL, https://grail.com/press-releases/grail-announces-significant-progress-with-multi-cancer-early-detection-test-including-fda-breakthrough-device-designation/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Grail Launches Pan-Cancer Screen for Those Who Can Pay out of Pocket. Evaluate.Com, 4 June 2021, https://www.evaluate.com/vantage/articles/news/snippets/grail-launches-pan-cancer-screen-those-who-can-pay-out-pocket. Health, Center for Devices and Radiological. Breakthrough Devices Program. FDA, Jan. 2021. www.fda.gov, https://www.fda.gov/medical-devices/how-study-and-market-your-device/breakthrough-devices-program. Kings Leads the Worlds Largest Trial of Cancer Blood Test. https://www.kcl.ac.uk/news/kings-leads-the-worlds-largest-trial-of-cancer-blood-test. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. NHS England NHS Launches World First Trial for New Cancer Test. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-launches-world-first-trial-for-new-cancer-test/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. https://www.england.nhs.uk/2021/09/nhs-launches-world-first-trial-for-new-cancer-test/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021. Our Products. GRAIL, https://grail.com/our-products/. Accessed 13 Sept. 2021.

True

In September 2021, British health officials announced the launch of the worlds largest trial of a blood test capable of detecting more than 50 types of cancer before symptoms appear. Headed by The Cancer Research UK, the National Health Service (NHS) in England, and Kings College London, the so-named Galleri trial aims to recruit 140,000 volunteers across eight areas of England. Galleri checks for the earliest signs of cancer. If it's successful, its ability to catch cancer during its earliest stages could be a game-changer in the fight against the disease. This quick and simple blood test could mark the beginning of a revolution in cancer detection and treatment here and around the world, said NHS Chief Executive Amanda Pritchard in a news release. By finding cancer before signs and symptoms even appear, we have the best chance of treating it and we can give people the best possible chance of survival.As of this writing, Galleri is not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) but was granted a breakthrough device designation in 2019 under a government-led voluntary program for certain medical devices "that provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions." The test joins two other similar tumor-testing tests that were approved in the U.S., according to the consumer publication Evaluate. Galleri is available in the U.S. for $949, and is available for prescription only. Because it is new to the market and does not have FDA approval, the test is not covered by health insurance. Galleri is designed to detect more than 50 types of cancer. Grail

FMD_train_267

Florida Business Owners Engage In Shootout with Looters; 31 Confirmed Dead

10/08/2016

While the state of Florida was fleeing Hurricane Matthew on 7 October 2016, the Boston Tribune web site falsely reported that 31 people died in a massive shootout between looters and local business owners in Daytona Beach: Boston Tribune reported In the aftermath of Hurricane Matthew, estimated to be one of the most destructive and deadly hurricanes to hit the United States in decades, 31- individuals have been confirmed dead after a group of store owners within a Florida strip mall engaged in a deadly shootout with looters. The incident occurred this morning at approximately 10:00 AM when a large group of 42-looters attempted to forcefully steal from businesses at the Willow Brook shopping center located just outside of Daytona Beach, Florida. [Business owner Conner] Olsen told reporters, As a small business owner who (has) lived in Florida his entire, Im no stranger to natural disasters and the tragedy they bring. Ive gone through this before and have been looted completely cleaned out. In our current economy my business just couldnt survive large scale theft and vandalism. My options were to fight for my business or go bankrupt I cant feed my wife and 3 children with thoughts and prayers. According to police reports, the shootout lasted approximately 4-minutes and resulted in the deaths of 31-individuals; 12 store owners and or store employees and 19 would be looters. Chief of Police Daniel Griffin made the following statement during an afternoon press-conference, What occurred at the Willow Brook shopping center today was unnecessary and nothing short of a tragedy. During these difficult and trying times we plead with you to help your neighbors and community members. We urge you to look out for and take care of each other not rob, steal, and shoot at each other. While the effects of Hurricane Matthew are undoubtedly devastating we are a strong community and we will get through this by working together. Although the Boston Tribune (like the Baltimore Gazette) sounds like a major city newspaper's digital counterpart, it is actually a front for known hoax purveyor Associated Media Coverage, a far older fake news site that usually spreads fabrications about laws or statutes that solely affect a specific subset of the population. A number of fellow fake or "satire" news sites feature disclaimers informing readers their articles are fabricated, but Associated Media Coverage (and the Boston Tribune) do not. Baltimore Gazette Associated Media Coverage sites The image appended to the article (reproduced above) was captioned "Florida Police Officers Arrest Store Owner After Killing Looter," but highlighted visual elements of the photograph indicate it was not taken inside the United States. Moreover, the photograph was captured as early as June 2016 and unrelated to any incidents that occurred during Hurricane Matthew or its aftermath: Associated Media Coverage falsehoods involve laws that would be a nuisance to specific groups often targeted gun owners or motorcycle enthusiasts; those items included claims of an impending motorcycle curfew in March 2016, a motorcycle speed ban in August 2016, a FDA e-juice ban in mid-2016, a "two pet maximum" ordinance in numerous jurisdictions (leading many households to believe they would be forced to rehome beloved pets), a 50-state ban on open carry, the elimination of Wisconsin's food assistance programs, and a sweeping 23-state ban on hollow point ammunition. curfew speed ban e-juice two pet maximum open carry Wisconsin's ammunition Associated Media Coverage broadened their scope into more upsetting but entirely unfunny fake news items (like the looter shootout), which included claims someone died in a transgender bathroom controversy-related confrontation (a piece published during nationwide debate over the issue), Casey Anthony sought to open a home daycare center, a dead baby was abandoned in a Walmart DVD bin, and Jodi Arias was granted early release from prison. transgender bathroom Casey Anthony DVD bin Jodi Arias

False

While the state of Florida was fleeing Hurricane Matthew on 7 October 2016, the Boston Tribune web site falsely reported that 31 people died in a massive shootout between looters and local business owners in Daytona Beach:Although the Boston Tribune (like the Baltimore Gazette) sounds like a major city newspaper's digital counterpart, it is actually a front for known hoax purveyor Associated Media Coverage, a far older fake news site that usually spreads fabrications about laws or statutes that solely affect a specific subset of the population. A number of fellow fake or "satire" news sites feature disclaimers informing readers their articles are fabricated, but Associated Media Coverage (and the Boston Tribune) do not.Associated Media Coverage falsehoods involve laws that would be a nuisance to specific groups often targeted gun owners or motorcycle enthusiasts; those items included claims of an impending motorcycle curfew in March 2016, a motorcycle speed ban in August 2016, a FDA e-juice ban in mid-2016, a "two pet maximum" ordinance in numerous jurisdictions (leading many households to believe they would be forced to rehome beloved pets), a 50-state ban on open carry, the elimination of Wisconsin's food assistance programs, and a sweeping 23-state ban on hollow point ammunition.Associated Media Coverage broadened their scope into more upsetting but entirely unfunny fake news items (like the looter shootout), which included claims someone died in a transgender bathroom controversy-related confrontation (a piece published during nationwide debate over the issue), Casey Anthony sought to open a home daycare center, a dead baby was abandoned in a Walmart DVD bin, and Jodi Arias was granted early release from prison.

FMD_train_1424

Why Is Charles Shaw Wine So Cheap?

01/02/2003

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

True

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

FMD_train_1682

Is the Democratic Party endorsed by AARP?

08/19/2020

In mid-August 2020, Snopes readers inquired about a meme circulating on Facebook that claimed money given to AARP (formerly American Association of Retired Persons), an advocacy organization that lobbies on behalf of retired Americans, goes "directly" to the Democratic party. It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations. estimated dues at tax-exempt accepts Either way, any money paid to AARP through membership dues or donations does not go "directly" to the Democratic party. The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security. stand Social Security In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties." states Instead, per AARP, the organization's role in terms of election politics is "connecting voters to information about where the candidates stand on issues most important to them including the future of Social Security and other critical issues related to financial security, health and well-being." We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter. Open Secrets "AARP does not have any record of direct contributions to political parties or candidates based on my review of federal campaign finance and tax filings covering recent years, but AARPs officers [executives] and employees can still make political donations in a personal capacity, and contributions from donors listing AARP as their employer in Federal Election Commission records have primarily gone to Democratic candidates in recent years," said Anna Massoglia, a researcher for The Center for Responsive Politics. AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours. policy According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates. total majority Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama. praised supported AARP spokesperson Jason Young told us by phone that the organization, as a 501(c)4 non-profit, is prohibited by law from making political contributions. "Not only does AARP not make donations of this sort, we never have and we don't have a PAC," Young added. Young said that although some AARP employees have made political contributions in a personal capacity, the sum of donations is relatively small. "It's fair to say we are largely absent form this type of political engagement, and that's because AARP as an organization is focused on policy, not politics," Young stated. Although it's true that individuals who work for AARP have donated primarily to Democratic candidates, individual donations are not the same as contributions by an organization. Because AARP as an organization has not contributed to the Democratic party or its candidates, we rate this claim, Hahn, Steve. "Voter and Candidate Reminder: AARP Is Strictly Non-Partisan." AARP. 26 August 2016. AARP.org. "How Much Does AARP Membership Cost?" Accessed 18 August 2020. AARP.org. "IRS Definition." 3 March 2011. AARP. org. "AARP Policy on Personal Political Activity." Accessed 19 August 2020. Bunis, Dena."AARP Urges Federal Appeals Court to Preserve the ACA." 1 April 2019. Updated to include comments from AARP spokesperson Jason Young.

False

It's unclear what exactly is meant by the phrase, "what you pay AARP." The organization has an estimated 38 million members, all of whom typically pay annual dues at $16 per year. As a 501(c)4 tax-exempt organization, it also accepts charitable donations.The AARP lobbies the government on behalf of causes that affect people aged 50 and older. Those activities may include taking a stand on health care and Social Security.In terms of candidates and political parties, however, AARP's official position is that it is non-partisan. The organization states it "does not support, endorse or contribute to political candidates or parties."We checked the AARP's federal campaign finance data using the website Open Secrets, a project operated by the government accountability organization The Center for Responsive Politics. We found no contributions to any political candidates or parties, Democratic or otherwise, from AARP, the organization. However, contributions from individuals who work for AARP is another matter.AARP policy prohibits employees or officers from engaging in any personal political activity using AARP resources or during work hours.According to campaign finance data tracked by Open Secrets, individual donors associated with AARP made a total of $96,381 in political contributions as of this writing in the 2020 federal election cycle, the majority (87.45%) of those donations going to Democratic candidates.Massoglia said that as a 501(c)4 organization, the AARP is allowed under U.S. tax code to engage in some political campaign activity. But their activities have been issue-oriented and bipartisan. For example, a 2018 AARP ad praised U.S. President Donald Trump on drug pricing policy. The organization has also supported upholding the Affordable Care Act, the landmark health care law signed by Trump's Democratic predecessor, President Barack Obama.

FMD_train_1150

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

05/31/2018

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

True

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

FMD_train_1201

Petition to Save the NEA

01/25/2001

Claim: Legislation currently under proposal would result in substantial cuts to federal funding of the NEA and other public arts programs. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 1995] SAVE SESAME STREET! This is a petition to save Sesame Street. ALL YOU DO IS ADD YOUR NAME TO THE LIST AT THE BOTTOM, then forward it to everyone you know. The only time you send it to the included address is if you are the 50th, 100th, etc. Send it on to everyone you know. PBS, NPR (National Public Radio), and the arts are facing major cutbacks in funding. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and streamline their services, the government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as "unworthwhile." Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year, and the National Endowment for the Arts equals $.64 a year in total. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS, third only to national defense and law enforcement as the most valuable programs for federal funding. Each year, the Senate and House Appropriations commitees each have 13 subcommitees with jurisdiction over many programs and agencies. Each subcommitee passes its own appropriation bill. The goal each year is to have each bill signed by the beginning of the fiscal year, which is October 1. In the instance of the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, the bill determines the funding for the next three years. When this issue comes up in 1996, the funding will be determined for fiscal years 1996-1998. The only way that our representatives can be aware of the base of support or PBS and funding for these types of programs is by making our voices heard. Please add your name to this list if you believe in what we stand for. This list will be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President of the United States, the House of Representatives and Congress. If you happen to be the 50th, 100th, 150th, etc. signer of this petition, please forward to: <[email protected]>. This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Forward this to everyone you know, and help us to keep these programs alive. Thank you. Variations: In 1998 versions of the above appeared which claimed "Nina Tottenberg" had appeared on NPR's Morning Edition. Some versions circulated in 2001 rendered "Nina Tottenberg" as "Nina Rottener." Origins: Some e-mail items never die off completely they periodically go through fallow periods during which they cease to circulate widely, but eventually something occurs that prompts people to begin forwarding them anew. This petition to help save the NEAfrom funding cutbacks was created a decade ago, and even though it long outlived the situation it was originally intended to address, it has been circulating for so long that the circumstances it describes may finally have come to pass. In 1995 a student at the University of Northern Colorado was writing a paper for a class about the downfall of culture in our society. During the course of her research she discovered proposed congressional budget cuts for PBS funding and, being young and idealistic, she decided to do something about it. She enlisted the help of another student, and the two of them drafted the petition that has been haunting the Internet for years since. The original contained no reference to Sesame Street that part was added shortly after the petition began to circulate, likely by a well-meaning supporter who thought suggesting that Sesame Street was in danger would garner additional sympathy for the cause. And it did. Couched in terms of "Save Sesame Street!," this petition decrying proposed government cuts to the 1996 public television budget began circulating on the Internet in the spring of 1995. (The ways of the Internet being what they are, it continues to circulate even though the "crisis" has long passed. Scarelore rarely comes with expiration dates.) The response it raised was breathtaking. The two college students who'd dreamed it up were almost immediately swamped with 2,000 incoming e-mails a day. Attempting to compile petition lists to forward to the government quickly became a Herculean task. Stopping what they'd set in motion proved every bit as impossible as keeping track of the incoming mail. After the congressional budget was announced (and arts funding wasn't slaughtered as badly as had been anticipated), they sent out a follow-up e-mail telling people the danger was over, to quit circulating the petition, and to tell others who were still circulating it to stop. To no avail, though; that petition continues to make the rounds even to this day. Though it's true the 104th Congress did cut the 1996 public television budget to $260 million, Sesame Street was never in danger of being axed. The Sesame Street name was invoked solely to anger people enough to get them involved in the protest over public television cuts, not because the show itself was at risk. As such, the ranks of those fighting the cuts were seeded by those duped into believing a personally-cherished icon of childhood was going down. PBS was neither the force behind this misleading e-mail petition, nor did they support it. The following is taken from the standard e-mail response sent out by PBS Viewer Services regarding this petition rumor: In the last several months, there has been a campaign on the Internet that incorrectly alleges that SESAME STREET is in jeopardy of being taken off the air. The "Save Sesame Street" campaign is unfounded and we at PBS and Children's Television Workshop (CTW), the producers of SESAME STREET, would like to tell you that Sesame Street is alive and well! In fact, SESAME STREET launched its 28th Season on November 18, 1996 with special guest ER's Noah Wyle. In addition to launching a new season, SESAME STREET is busy preparing for their 30th anniversary celebration which is just around the corner (fall 1998). We can assure you that there is no PBS sanctioned petition. Please disregard any you come across. Like all good bad pieces of misinformative netlore, this one kept going and going. In early 1997 all references to Sesame Street had been stripped out of this message, and it began causing consternation all over again as it made another round of the Internet. Then yet another version sprang up in early 1999: This message is long but important. On Thursday January 6th's NPR Morning Edition, Nina Totenberg reported that if the Supreme Court supports Congress to cut the budget of the National Endowment of the Arts, it is in effect the end of NEA. This situation creates great concerns about Congressional funding for creative arts in America, since NEA provides major support for NPR (National Public Radio), PBS (Public Broadcasting System), and numerous other creative and performing arts. If NEA is lost or weakened, our lives will be similarly diminished. In spite of the efforts of each station to reduce spending costs and streamline their services, some government officials believe that the funding currently going to these programs is too large a portion of funding for something which is seen as not worthwhile. Currently, taxes from the general public for PBS equal $1.12 per person per year, and the National Endowment for the Arts equals $.64 a year. A January 1995 CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll indicated that 76% of Americans wish to keep funding for PBS, third only to national defense and law enforcement as the most valuable programs for federal funding. Each year the Senate and House Appropriations committees each have 13 subcommittees with jurisdiction over many programs and agencies. Each subcommittee passes its own appropriation bill. The goal each year is to have each bill signed by the beginning of the fiscal year, which is October 1. The only way that our representatives can be aware of the base of support for PBS and funding for these types of programs is by our making our voices heard. Please add your name to this list and forward it to friends who believe in favor of what this stands for. The full list will be forwarded to the President of the United States, the Vice President, and the Speaker of the House, whose office has in the past been the instigator of the action to cut funding to these worthwhile programs. This petition is being passed around the Internet. Please add your name to it so funding can be maintained for the NEA, NPR, and PBS. THIS IS OUR CHANCE TO MAKE INTERNET TECHNOLOGY WORK AS A VOICE IN OUR DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM. IT'S EASIER THAN EVER TO MAKE OUR VOICES HEARD. Please keep the petition rolling. Do not reply to me. Add your name and locale to the list and forward it to others to sign. If you prefer not to sign, please send the list to the email address given below. This is being forwarded to numerous people at once. It won't matter if many people receive the same list as the names are being managed. This is for anyone who thinks NPR and PBS deserve $1.12/year of their taxes. If you sign, please forward the list to others. If not, please don't kill it. **** If you happen to be the 150th, 200th, 250th, tc., signer of this petition, please forward a copy to: <[email protected]>. This way we can keep track of the lists and organize them. Forward this to everyone you know and help keep these programs alive **** Thank you. (NOTE: It is preferable you SELECT the entirety of this letter and COPY it into a NEW outgoing message, rather than simply forwarding it.) In your new outgoing message add your name to the bottom of the list, then send it on. Or, if the option is available, do a SEND AGAIN. Why anyone would re-invent this petition in 1997 and again in 1999 to fight something that was a done deal by mid-1996 is puzzling. Coincidentally, though, in June 2005 the non-existent situation which this petition had been decrying for several years finally hit the news for real when a House committee voted to sharply reduce (and eventually eliminate) federal financial support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The proposed cuts were rescinded by a subsequent vote of the full House. voted Barbara "knights of the undead" Mikkelson Last updated: 23 June 2005 Sources: Farhi, Paul. "Public Broadcasting Targeted by House." The Washington Post. 10 June 2005 (P. A1). Sierra, Bryan. "Bert and Ernie Lobby for Funding." United Press International. 1 March 1995. Vittachi, Nury. "It's Amazing What Brews ." South China Morning Post. 18 July 1996 (p. 12). Wolf, Richard. "An Epic Battle of the Budget Begins Today." USA Today. 16 March 1995 (p. A4). Electronic Media. "The Insider." 13 May 1996 (p. 10). NetGuide. "The Little Petition That Grew." 1 November 1996. St. Louis Post-Dispatch. "ABC Switches to Movies with Football Season Over." 26 December 1996 (p. F6).

False

Coincidentally, though, in June 2005 the non-existent situation which this petition had been decrying for several years finally hit the news for real when a House committee voted to sharply reduce (and eventually eliminate) federal financial support for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The proposed cuts were rescinded by a subsequent vote of the full House.

FMD_train_1330

Groom's wedding attire

05/10/2004

Claim: A man listed a wedding gown on eBay via a hilarious offer of sale that included photos of him posing in the dress. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] For Sale: One Slightly Used Size 12 Wedding Gown. Only worn twice: Once at the wedding and once for these pictures. Make: Victoria Style: 611 Size: 12 Divorce forces sale I found my ex-wife's wedding dress in the attic when I moved. She took the $4000 engagement ring but left the dress. I was actually going to have a dress burning party when the divorce became final, but my sister talked me out of it. She said, "Thats such a gorgeous dress. Some lucky girl would be glad to have it. You should sell it on EBay. At least get something back for it." So, this is what Im doing. Im selling it hoping to get enough money for maybe a couple of Mariners tickets and some beer. This dress cost me $1200 that my drunken sot of an ex-father-in-law swore up and down he would pay for but didnt so I got stuck with the bill. Luckily I only got stuck with his daughter for 5 years. Thank the Lord we didn't have kids. If they would have turned out like her or her family I would have slit my wrists. Anyway, its a really nice dress as you can see in the pictures. Personally, I think it looks like a $1200 shower curtain, but what do I know about this. We tried taking pictures of this lovely white garment but it didnt look right on the hanger as you can see, so my sister says, "You need a model." Well, quite frankly my sister isnt exactly small, (like a size 12 is?) so she wouldnt pose for the picture. Seeing as I have sworn off women for the time being and I aint friends with any, it left me holding the bag. I took the liberty of blacking out my face - not to protect the ex-wife but to protect me from my bar buddies and co-workers finding out about it. I would never live it down. Actually I didnt think my head would fit in the neck hole, but then I figured she got her Texas cheerleader hair through there I could get my head in it. Though, after looking at the pictures, I thought it made me look fat. How do you women wear this crap? I only had to walk 3 feet and I tripped twice. Dont worry ladies - I am wearing clothes on underneath it. I gotta say it did make me feel very pretty. So if it can make me feel pretty, it can make you feel pretty, especially on the most important day of your life, right? Anyway, I was told to say it has a train and a veil and all kinds of shiny beady things. I think it's funny that one picture makes it look like the chest plate off an Imperial Storm Trooper. Did I mention that all I want is a ball game and beer? Cheap at twice the price. Ladies, you wont regret this. You may regret the dude you marry but not the dress. Just a little side note - As I was putting this ad in EBay, it asked me for a color. Is a wedding dress any other freaking color than white or ivory??!! If it is it wouldn't be a wedding dress, now would it?? I suppose black would work... On Apr-26-04 at 10:38:31 PDT, seller added the following information: Well, the auction is a little over half over and I am just amazed. This thing has taken more hits than that pothead that lives in the next building. Man, oh man, if hits were bucks Id be getting a suite at Safeco. I also have received TONS of email. I dont have the time to reply to all of them but I just want to let everyone know that I appreciate the well wishes. Of the email I received: Five or so were invitations to ball games in other states. Two of those were for little league games. Do they have those cushy executive boxes with the free chicken wings at those? One email was from Scotland. Its a good thing he wrote it because I wouldnt be able to understand a word he said. Never did get through Braveheart. Most were thanking me for the laugh. Youre entirely welcome. Five years of misery was well worth the hearty guffaw that was my pleasure to give you. Oh, yeah. I also got three marriage proposals. Yes, you read it right - three marriage proposals. I feel like one of those mass murderers on death row. I never understood how the hell they got more chicks than I did. Now I know. They sold crap on eBay. On Apr-26-04 at 23:45:56 PDT, seller added the following information: Holy Moly! The hit counter is starting to look like the odometer in my truck! Not the new shiny black full-size 4-wheel-drive American pick-up that I had to part with, but the somewhat older, multicolored, lumpy, tiny, 2-wheel-drive foreign pick-up that belches smoke. A little something about that vehicle, though: its absolutely amazing! When I get inside it to go to the store, I am all depressed. But when I arrive at the store, Im so freaking loopy from inhaling the fumes, I forget why I went there in the first place. Im saving buckets of money. Of course, I will probably have to spend it all on the tuberculosis I will acquire, but hey, you cant have everything. I felt compelled to update this ad once more due to all of your emails. The first thing I have to say is thank you all for your support in my time of need. It was a truly harrowing experience. Some of you men know exactly what I mean. Seeing as this has turned into my little public forum, I just want to address a few of the emails that kind of left me scratching my head. I now have five marriage proposals. You would think my speaking of the ones I already got yesterday would have put a damper on it, but you women sure are persistent. One woman actually said she doesnt want to marry me, but wouldnt mind being my ex-wife. Hmmm. Let me think about that. Nope. No thanks, already got one. (Pssst. Didnt I mention I had one? Who wants an ex-wife that cant read? Now, I know what you guys are thinking - "If she cant read, then the divorce would be smooth sailing." Well, that would be all well and good but I didnt say her ATTORNEY couldnt read. You following me on this?) Other emails are serious buyers asking about the dress. "How long is the train?" and "Does the gown come with the headdress and veil?" Yes, headdress and veil are included, but the do-rag stays with me. And if the train was long enough for my exs caboose, its long enough for yours. You will have to supply your own baggage, though. I gave mine to Goodwill. There was this one woman who wrote, "You should have covered your tattoos. People will be able to recognize you, like on Americas Most Wanted." HELLO!!! Im a guy selling a dress. Im not wanted for war crimes. Some of your emails made me laugh. Like the bitter woman that wished she had her exs testicles to sell on eBay. Im not too sure theres a market for that, though. Then there was the guy that gave his wifes wedding dress to the Salvation Army by mistake, thinking it was a Christmas tree. Guess he didnt have any Christmas balls that year. This has also been a learning experience for me. I got a lot of messages correcting me about the color of wedding dresses. For Russian Orthodox, they are blue. For Chinese they are red. Mexico has multi-colored ones. All I know is, for my next wedding I will be wearing a hairy, flesh-toned ensemble because I will be buck naked with a toe tag lying on a slab in the morgue because I would have killed myself. A lot of folks were asking me if I wear womens dresses a lot. I can honestly say that this is the first time I have ever donned female attire. Its also the first time Ive been inside something feminine that didnt nag me to take out the garbage. It seems a few people have taken offense to my inferring a size 12 is big. One male even pointed out that Marilyn Monroe was a size 14. Now, I would agree with you that size 12/14 is small if I lived elsewhere. But I live right here in the good old 48 Contiguous, where binging and purging is a way of life. American women do not want to be double digits in size. Just ask any woman what size they want to be. Invariably they will say five or seven. Wealthy will be the person that opens a store for Lane Bryant-sized women but sews size 7 tags on all the clothes. On the flip side of that, I have taken offense to some of the people that told me Im ugly and a loser. All I have to say is youd be ugly too if you had a huge white blotch on your face. And as far as being a loser, I think you have it all wrong. I am such the winner. It isnt every day an average guy can make 50,000 people laugh. Thanks to each and every one of you from the heart of my bottom. Origins: The online auction powerhouse eBay has been the setting of many strange come-ons, some seriously meant and some far less so. In addition to a throng of earnest sellers and determined bargain hunters that frequent this popular online bazaar, it is also populated by its share of crazies intent upon sneaking their hoax listings into the marketplace. Consequently, one can't always tell fish from fowl at first glance. Over the years, our readers have queried us about various eBay auctions because they harbored suspicions about particular listings, either due to the nature of the goods being tendered or because something about the pitch struck them as not quite right (e.g.; an offer of a tea kettle, which displayed additional wares of the seller). Yet few of the auctions so doubted have been asked about as often as the April 2004 proffering of a size 12 Victoria wedding gown, an item that isn't in and of itself all that unusual. But it wasn't the dress that set people to wondering; it was the seller's comments, which appeared to afford a hilarious look into one man's private hell. The seller wasn't so much advertising a dress as he was proclaiming from a public soapbox how awful his wife had been. The auction listing was just as much about getting even as it was about unloading an item he had no particular use for. tea kettle Or was it? Had a gal with "Texas cheerleader hair" really so turned a man against marriage that he swore that "for my next wedding I will be wearing a hairy, flesh-toned ensemble because I will be buck naked with a toe tag lying on a slab in the morgue because I would have killed myself"? Herein rested the listing's appeal: The story was entertaining, but was it real? The solicitation was on the up and up, at least in regard to the nature of the merchandise being vended there was such a dress, and the offer of sale was genuine. However, some (if not all) of the gown's backstory was the stuff of fairy tales. The original eBay listing posted by 42-year-old Larry Star wasn't provoking much interest among those shopping for a wedding dress, so he rewrote it to make it amusing resulting in the posting that has served to make him famous. The tale of marital woe posted by this Brooklyn native both contained invented details and omitted key bits of information. Though he has a sister, she didn't talk him out of the dress burning party he had his heart set upon by suggesting he list the gown on eBay and so get something out of it. He also had an ex-wife prior to the one whose dress he supposedly was selling. (Star and his first missus were married in 1994, separated in 1996, and were divorced in 1998.) And contrary to his statement, "Thank the Lord we didn't have kids. If they would have turned out like her or her family I would have slit my wrists," he and his second wife did indeed have a son together during their short-lived marriage. The unhappy couple wed in 2000, separated in 2001 after a domestic kafuffle (which reportedly resulted in Star's being charged with domestic violence assault in the fourth degree and interfering with the reporting of domestic violence), and divorced in 2003. Though "five years of misery" might well have been worth the hearty guffaw he says was his pleasure to give the online community, those years weren't spent "stuck" with the "drunken sot's" daughter; his time cohabitating with Wife #2 amounted to just a bit more than a year. It's not known if the gown in question even belonged to his ex-wife, as she hasn't surfaced to speak publicly about the matter. Also, according to the Houston Chronicle, when asked if the dress had really been hers, Mr. Star sidestepped the question, instead replying, "I got the wedding dress, I wanted to get rid of it. I was going to burn it and had the idea of selling it on eBay. I needed to sell it on eBay with all the other dresses on there, and I needed to make it stand out." And stand out it did. The auction of the fabled wedding gown ended 28 April 2004 with a buyer using the online handle of "absolutsth" placing the winning bid of $3,850. Yet all is not coming up roses for the intrepid seller who one would assume to be realizing a profit of $2,650 on the gown he says cost originally $1,200, as the sale has fallen through. According to Star, the buyer has backed out, claiming "I left my computer on and somebody made the bid for me." The folks at eBay have told Star he can either accept the second-highest bid or re-list the dress and hold the sale again. As of 7 May 2004, he had not decided whether he would accept the next highest legitimate bid (if there even was a legitimate bid). By the time the auction ended, Star's listing on eBay had been viewed more than 5.8 million times. Some of those visitors, possibly caught up in the frenzy of it all, placed bids they did not intend to honor. (Officials at eBay had to weed out many phonies at one point the bidding reached $99 million.) How many of the remaining bids were legitimate is not known. And, even if all those bids were meant seriously at the time they were placed, some of those prospective buyers may now be having second thoughts, particularly those who offered more than $1,000 for a used, stained dress that was only worth $1,200 when it first came off the hanger. The ultimate fate of the frock may take it in a far different direction than down the aisle on the back of a budget-conscious bride. Its listing (which has now been viewed 11 million times) has brought recognition to its owner and has possibly opened the way to a new career for this software test designer and part-time musician. Thanks to the dress, Larry Star has twice been a guest on both MSNBC's Countdown and NBC's Today Show, each time wearing the unsold gown. Also thanks to the dress, he has made his debut as a stand-up comedian at the Punchline Comedy Club in Atlanta. He has said he would like to pursue a comedy writing career, and all this attention might well work to get that going. Though there are many stand-up comedians on the circuit, we know of none that perform their schtick outfitted in wedding regalia. Could this gown do for Star what a sledgehammer and a watermelon did for Gallagher? Barbara "smash hit" Mikkelson Additional Information: Weddingdressguy.com (Larry Star) Last updated: 3 July 2007 Sources: Brodeur, Nicole. "Fact Is, There's Some Fiction to Man's Pitch to Sell His Ex-wife's Wedding Dress on eBay." The Seattle Times. 29 April 2004 (p. B1). Curry, Ann, Matt Lauer and Katie, Couric. "Today." NBC. 30 April 2004. Eldredge, Richard. "Wedding Dress Guy Jilted by eBay Bidder." The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. 7 May 2004 (p. E2). Kelso, John. "Best of eBay: A Wedding Dress Tale." Cox News Service. 2 May 2004. Olbermann, Keith. "Countdown." MSNBC. 30 April 2004. Olbermann, Keith. "Countdown." MSNBC. 28 April 2004. Parks, Louis. "On eBay, Wedding Dress for Success." The Houston Chronicle. 30 April 2004 (Houston; p. 1). Weiss, Tara. "A Star is Born, Selling Wedding Dress on eBay." Hartford Courant. 30 April 2004 (p. D2). Associated Press. "Man Who Sold Ex's Wedding Dress on eBay Earns Instant Fame." 30 April 2004. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. "15 Minutes Still Ticking for Wedding Dress Guy." 4 May 2004 (p. E2).

True

Over the years, our readers have queried us about various eBay auctions because they harbored suspicions about particular listings, either due to the nature of the goods being tendered or because something about the pitch struck them as not quite right (e.g.; an offer of a tea kettle, which displayed additional wares of the seller). Yet few of the auctions so doubted have been asked about as often as the April 2004 proffering of a size 12 Victoria wedding gown, an item that isn't in and of itself all that unusual. But it wasn't the dress that set people to wondering; it was the seller's comments, which appeared to afford a hilarious look into one man's private hell. The seller wasn't so much advertising a dress as he was proclaiming from a public soapbox how awful his wife had been. The auction listing was just as much about getting even as it was about unloading an item he had no particular use for.Additional Information: Weddingdressguy.com (Larry Star)

FMD_train_103

iCloud Storage Scam Email Falsely Claims Your Payment Failed and 'All Your Photos Will Be Deleted'

10/31/2023

In late October 2023, the latest iteration of iCloud storage scam email messages circulated in users' inboxes. The subject line of one message that we reviewed read, "LAST ALERT: ALL YOUR PHOTOS WILL BE DELETED!" The message came from a dubious email address that did not end in @apple.com or @icloud.com. The email address showed the display name of "iCloud Storage." The message began as follows: iCloudFailed to attempt payment when renewing yourCloud storage subscription0 GB 48.9GB /50 GB We failed to renew your iCloud storageYour photos and videos will be deleted!! Your payment method has expired: Update your payment information!If you don't have enough iCloud space, you can upgrade storage plan The link in the message led to a page on menoshold.com, a scam website without a homepage. The page read as follows: Your iCloud Storage Is Full! Your photos, videos, files and private data will be lost. As part of our loyalty program, you can receive an additional 50GB storage by paying $1.95 one time only before all the files are deleted. Answer the following 3 simple questions to claim your special offer now. After filling out a brief survey, the page then displayed the following text: You will be redirected to the next page to claim the 50GB iCloud Storage with $1.95 only. Fill in your basic information and pay $1.95 with credit card or debit card. The 50GB iCloud storage will be added to your current device. The scam then led to a final page on hyperimmunizing.com, also a scam website with no homepage. On the page, we noted that the terms and conditions indicated the entire ruse was a hidden subscription scam, meaning that scammers were attempting to fool users into signing up for recurring monthly fees for services they did not choose. The terms did not mention a specific monthly cost or the types of services that would be provided, but did say at least some users would be "automatically billed every thirty (30) days to the credit card you provided." For readers who might be looking for customer support information, the hyperimmunizing.com website showed the phone number (833) 282-4266 and the email address [email protected]. A representative reached by the phone number only told Snopes that they were a third-party company that was located in Southeast Asia and that they provide services for U.S.-based firms. We advise users who submitted their credit card information to contact their credit card companies to alert them of this activity. If iCloud users have questions for Apple about their storage subscriptions, we recommend visiting the official website for iCloud Support. Apple also published a page about how to recognize scams that impersonate the company. the official website for iCloud Support page Recognize and Avoid Phishing Messages, Phony Support Calls, and Other Scams. Apple Support, https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT204759.

False

If iCloud users have questions for Apple about their storage subscriptions, we recommend visiting the official website for iCloud Support. Apple also published a page about how to recognize scams that impersonate the company.

FMD_train_837

Collectively states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education.

02/19/2013

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, is urging lawmakers to make Medicaid more flexible, effective, and cheaper for states to run. Under the Medicaid system, the rules are set in Washington, but much of the funding is managed in our state capitals, he said during his Feb. 5 "Make Life Work" speech at a conservative think tank in Washington. Collectively, states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education. Cantor's staff informed us that this information came from a report published by the National Association of State Budget Officers last fall, which detailed where states receive and spend their money. The study found that states planned to spend a total of $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2012. Of this amount, 39.8 percent would come from general fund revenues collected through statewide taxes, 31.2 percent from federal grants, and the remaining 29 percent from other state funds and bonds. Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, was expected to be the most expensive item in the collective state budgets. States were projected to spend $406 billion on the service, or 23.9 percent of their total budgets. Elementary and secondary education came in second, drawing $336 billion, or 19.8 percent of total expenses. However, there is a caveat to these figures: The federal government provides states with about 56 percent of what they spend on Medicaid, according to the NASBO report. Therefore, Cantor is including as state expenses approximately $228 billion that the federal government allocates to the states for Medicaid. The picture changes if we examine only the portions of Medicaid and public education that states pay from their general funds. Public schools rise to the top of the expense list, receiving an expected $235 billion last fiscal year, or 34.7 percent of all general fund spending. Medicaid falls to a distant second, with an estimated $133 billion, or 19.6 percent of general fund outlays. Experts we spoke to did not express a preference for one accounting method over the other. "We include both methods in our report," said Stacy Mazer, senior staff associate at NASBO. "One reason we've been using total funds is that some states define their funds differently. Another issue is that even though it's not all your money, you're still administering it." Tracy Gordon, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, noted that most health care industry analysts use the total figure cited by Cantor but acknowledge that it includes federal dollars. Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, stated that his organization tracks states' general fund spending and considers K-12 education to be the greatest recipient of state money. Our ruling: Cantor said states are spending more on Medicaid than on education. His statement is correct, although it should be noted that a substantial portion of the dollars states are spending on Medicaid comes from the federal government. We rate Cantor's statement True.

True

House Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-7th, is urging lawmakers to make Medicaid more flexible, effective and cheaper for states to run.Under the Medicaid system the rules are set in Washington, but much of the bills are paid in our state capitals, he said during his Feb. 5 Make Life Workspeechat a conservative think tank in Washington Collectively states are spending more on Medicaid than they do on K-12 education.We looked into the claim that states are paying more for Medicaid than public education. Cantors staff told us the information came from areport, published by the National Association of State Budget Officers last fall, that tallied where states get and spend their money.The study found that states planned to spend a total $1.7 trillion in fiscal 2012. Of the sum, 39.8 percent would come from general fund moneys that are collected through statewide taxes, 31.2 percent from federal grants and the remaining 29 percent from other state funds and bonds.Medicaid, which provides health care for the poor, was expected to be the most expensive item in the collective state budgets. States were projected to spend $406 billion on the service, or 23.9 percent of their total budgets. Elementary and secondary education came in second, drawing $336 billion, or 19.8 percent of total expenses.But theres a catch to these figures: The federal government provides states with about 56 percent of what they spend on Medicaid, according to NASBO report. So Cantor is including as state expenses about $228 billion that Uncle Sam sends to the states for Medicaid.The picture changes if we simply examine the portions of Medicaid and public education that states pay out of their general funds. Public schools rise to the top of the expense list, drawing an expected $235 billion last fiscal year, or 34.7 percent of all general fund spending. Medicaid falls to a distant No. 2, receiving an estimated $133 billion, or 19.6 percent of general fund outlays.Experts we spoke to didnt express a preference for one accounting method or the other.We include both methods in our report, said Stacy Mazer, senior staff associate at NASBO. One reason weve been using total funds is that some states define their funds differently. And one of the other issues is that even though its not all your money, youre still administering it.Tracy Gordon, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, said most health care industry analysts use a total figure cited by Cantor, but note that it includes federal dollars.Arturo Perez, a fiscal analyst with the National Conference of State Legislatures, said his organization tracks states general fund spending and considers K-12 education to be the greatest recipient of state money.Our rulingCantor said states are spending more on Medicaid than on education. His statement is correct, although it should be noted that a substantial portion of the dollars states are spending on Medicaid come from the federal government.We rate Cantors statement True.

FMD_train_1904

Sinking of Titanic Was Orchestrated to Kill Businessmen Who Opposed Formation of Federal Reserve?

02/21/2024

On Feb. 19, 2024, X user Matt Wallace, who previously has trafficked in various unsupported conspiracy theories, suggested in a new post (archived) that hinted the sinking of the Titanic was an inside job. The post read, "Rumors are circulating that they sunk the Titanic to kill the powerful men on board who opposed a central bank." trafficked in various unsupported conspiracy theories post archived Similarly, a previous post from a Telegram user that was posted in 2022 also promoted the same conspiracy theory, and read, "These men opposed globalist's world banks (Federal Reserve). Benjamin Guggenheim, Isidor Straus, [and John] Jacob Astor [all] opposed the new Federal Reserve bank. Today, these men would be worth $11 billion. All three of these men were aboard the Titanic when it sank. All three died that night." According to the TinEye reverse image search website, this meme had been shared since at least 2014. However, the rumor itself had started spreading several years before. It's true that American businessman Benjamin Guggenheim, Macy's co-owner Isidor Straus and fur magnate and real estate developer John Jacob Astor all perished in the sinking of the Titanic. However, the overall claim intimated by the posts was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory. Titanic The misleading meme appeared to have been born out of previous ones that mentioned American financier J.P. Morgan. Morgan owned the companies that managed the Titanic and was not a passenger on its maiden voyage. owned Past memes suggested that Morgan had somehow miraculously orchestrated the voyage to end in tragedy in order to kill Guggenheim, Straus and Astor. According to the memes, Morgan's supposed reason for planning the demise of the three prominent men was because they all opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. (The centralized banking system was established in 1913, the year after the sinking of the Titanic.) established J.P. Morgan striking photographer with cane. (Courtesy: Library of Congress) The meme in question also said, "Today, these men would be worth $11 billion." However, it's unclear how much each of the men's descendants would be worth today had they survived. In March 2021, Reuters published a thorough report that debunked the rumor behind all of the memes on this subject. The article included an interview with a Titanic expert named George Behe, whose research into the history of Titanic goes all the way back to the 1970s. According to Behe, there is no known evidence that showed Guggenheim, Straus, or Astor opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. In fact, in 1911, The New York Times reported that Astor was very much in favor of the idea. published reported It's widely agreed upon by experts that the sinking of the Titanic was an accident, the reporting from Reuters said. The ship struck an iceberg on the night of April 14, 1912. Within hours, more than 1,500 people had died. died We contacted Behe in an effort to find out if there had been any updates since Reuters published its story in 2021. "To the best of my knowledge, the conspiracy theory is just as false today as it was when it was first created, and no important new revelations have turned up within the last couple of years," Behe told us in an email dated Jan. 8, 2023. "Sadly, once these nonsensical conspiracy theories have been foisted upon the general public via the internet, the theories are destined to plague humanity forevermore and will continue to fool innocent people who are unfamiliar with the facts." For further details, Behe pointed us in the direction of historian J. Kent Layton, who is credited as an author for books including, "Conspiracies at Sea: Titanic and Lusitania," "On a Sea of Glass: The Life & Loss of the RMS Titanic" and "Recreating Titanic & Her Sisters: A Visual History." "We've been tackling this nonsense with historical data since at least the late-90s to early-00s," Layton told us by email in June 2023. "However, social media is a fantastic breeding ground for conspiracies of all sorts.Titanicseems to be a favorite of many." Layton remarked to us in detail regarding why the conspiracy theory made no sense to him: I would point out that if the sinking had actually been a conspiracy to kill those three individuals, there would have been no way that they could ensure their actual demise unless they had locked them somewhere inside the ship to die as it sank. Instead, the evidence indicates that all three were seen during the sinking. Guggenheim famously case aside his heavy coat and lifebelt after his steward had helped him into them, saying that he and his manservant were 'dressed in their best and prepared to go down as gentlemen'. Straus nearly made it into a lifeboat, and fellow passengers even recommended that he board a lifeboat with his wife, but he deferred, preferring to let women and children board while he waited behind with other men. Astor was seen very late in the disaster, helping his wife into a lifeboat; when he asked an officer loading the boat, apparently Second Officer Lightoller, if he could board, Lightoller said no. However, Lightoller had maintained a rather rigid policy of allowing no men into the lifeboats that he filled, and there had been plenty of other opportunities for Astor to board a boat. In fact, we recently discovered an account that indicated that Astor and his wife had approached an early boat on the other side of the ship, when the situation seemed less serious, but that they had stepped back from the lifeboat of their own accord at the last moment and stayed for a while longer on the ship. If a conspiracy to kill these three men had been so deep and involved so as to actually sink an ocean liner and kill hundreds of innocent people, one would think that the individuals responsible would not have left the survival of these three men to chance. This story will be updated in the future should we uncover any further helpful information. Beattie, Andrew, et al. "How the Federal Reserve Was Formed." Investopedia, 24 June 2007, https://www.investopedia.com/articles/economics/08/federal-reserve.asp. Bird, Mike. "There's a Wild Conspiracy Theory That the Rothschilds Sank the Titanic to Set up the Federal Reserve." Business Insider, 12 Oct. 2015, https://www.businessinsider.com/conspiracy-theory-that-the-rothschilds-and-federal-reserve-proponents-sank-the-titanic-2015-10. "CORRECTED-Fact Check-J.P. Morgan Did Not Sink the Titanic to Push Forward Plans for the U.S. Federal Reserve." Reuters, 17 Mar. 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-titanic-conspiracy-idUSL1N2LF18G. "Federal Reserve Board - Structure of the Federal Reserve System." Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, https://www.federalreserve.gov/aboutthefed/structure-federal-reserve-system.htm. "ISIDOR STRAUS URGES NEW BANKING PLAN; Replies to J.J. Hill's Attack on the National Reserve Association Scheme." The New York Times, 16 Oct. 1911, https://www.nytimes.com/1911/10/16/archives/isidor-straus-urges-new-banking-plan-replies-to-jj-hills-attack-on.html. "John Jacob Astor | American Businessman [1864-1912]." Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/John-Jacob-Astor-American-businessman-1864-1912. Kennedy, Dana. "Divers Find Champagne, Dishes In Shipwreck, But No Gold Yet." AP News, 16 July 1987, https://apnews.com/article/a9b6a7e5cd8104edf4501f876eebf44b. Segal, Troy, et al. "Central Bank." Investopedia, 18 Nov. 2003, https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/centralbank.asp. "The White Star Line and The International Mercantile Marine Company." Titanic Historical Society, 28 Mar. 2018, https://titanichistoricalsociety.org/international-mercantile-marine-company/. TinEye Reverse Image Search. https://tineye.com/. "Titanic | History, Sinking, Rescue, Survivors, Movies, & Facts." Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/topic/Titanic.

False

On Feb. 19, 2024, X user Matt Wallace, who previously has trafficked in various unsupported conspiracy theories, suggested in a new post (archived) that hinted the sinking of the Titanic was an inside job. The post read, "Rumors are circulating that they sunk the Titanic to kill the powerful men on board who opposed a central bank."It's true that American businessman Benjamin Guggenheim, Macy's co-owner Isidor Straus and fur magnate and real estate developer John Jacob Astor all perished in the sinking of the Titanic. However, the overall claim intimated by the posts was nothing more than a baseless conspiracy theory.The misleading meme appeared to have been born out of previous ones that mentioned American financier J.P. Morgan. Morgan owned the companies that managed the Titanic and was not a passenger on its maiden voyage.According to the memes, Morgan's supposed reason for planning the demise of the three prominent men was because they all opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. (The centralized banking system was established in 1913, the year after the sinking of the Titanic.)In March 2021, Reuters published a thorough report that debunked the rumor behind all of the memes on this subject. The article included an interview with a Titanic expert named George Behe, whose research into the history of Titanic goes all the way back to the 1970s. According to Behe, there is no known evidence that showed Guggenheim, Straus, or Astor opposed the formation of the Federal Reserve. In fact, in 1911, The New York Times reported that Astor was very much in favor of the idea.It's widely agreed upon by experts that the sinking of the Titanic was an accident, the reporting from Reuters said. The ship struck an iceberg on the night of April 14, 1912. Within hours, more than 1,500 people had died.

FMD_train_1348

No, Associated Press Did Not Report that Obama Was 'Kenyan-Born'

10/19/2009

Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] What most people know is that the Associated Press (AP) is one of the largest, internationally recognized, syndicated news services. What most people don't know that is in 2004, the AP was a "birther" news organization. How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available here. here The AP reporter stated the following: Kenyan-born US Senate hopeful, Barrack Obama, appeared set to take over the Illinois Senate seat after his main rival, Jack Ryan, dropped out of the race on Friday night amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations. (Sunday Standard/Internet Archive) article However, The Associated Press made no such reference; the identification of Barack Obama as "Kenyan-born" was added to the Sunday Standard's version of the AP story by someone else (who misspelled the politician's given name as "Barrack" in the process) and is apparently unique to that publication. The full text of the "Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid" article as originally issued by the Associated Press is retrievable from the LexisNexis archive of global news sources, and it contains no reference (in the lead-in or elsewhere) to Barack Obama's being "Kenyan-born": Associated Press Online June 25, 2004 Friday Illinois' Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid BYLINE: MAURA KELLY LANNAN; Associated Press WriterSECTION: NATIONAL POLITICAL NEWSDATELINE: CHICAGO Illinois Senate candidate Jack Ryan dropped out of the race Friday amid a furor over lurid sex club allegations that horrified fellow Republicans and caused his once-promising candidacy to implode in four short days. "It's clear to me that a vigorous debate on the issues most likely could not take place if I remain in the race," Ryan, 44, said in a statement. "What would take place, rather, is a brutal, scorched-earth campaign - the kind of campaign that has turned off so many voters, the kind of politics I refuse to play." The campaign began to come apart Monday following the release of embarrassing records from Ryan's divorce. In those records, his ex-wife, "Boston Public" actress Jeri Ryan, said Ryan took her to kinky sex clubs in Paris, New York and New Orleans and tried to get her to perform sex acts with him while others watched. Ryan disputed the allegations, saying he and his wife went to one "avant-garde" club in Paris and left because they felt uncomfortable. In quitting the race, Ryan lashed out at the media and said it was "truly outrageous" that the Chicago Tribune got a judge to unseal the records. "The media has gotten out of control," he said. Top Illinois Republicans immediately began the work of selecting a new candidate. Their choice will become an instant underdog against Democratic state Sen. Barack Obama in the campaign for the seat of retiring GOP Sen. Peter Fitzgerald. Obama held a wide lead even before the scandal broke. "I feel for him actually," Obama said on WLS-AM. "What he's gone through over the last three days I think is something you wouldn't wish on anybody. Unfortunately, I think our politics has gotten so personalized and cutthroat that it's very difficult for people to want to get in the business." Ryan had faced mounting pressure to quit from party leaders, who met several times in Washington this week to discuss whether the campaign could survive. "He really was a dead man walking," Gary MacDougal, former Illinois Republican Party chairman. Ryan conducted an overnight poll to gauge his support. After reviewing the results, Ryan's advisers told the candidate that the only way to survive would be wage an extremely negative and expensive response. "Jack Ryan made the right decision. I know it must have been a difficult one," said House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who made his feelings known by canceling a fund-raising event scheduled for Thursday with Ryan. Ryan was a political neophyte when he got into the race - a millionaire investment banker who had left business four years ago to teach at an all-boys parochial school in Chicago. He spent $3 million of his own fortune to win the primary. With his good looks and Harvard background, Ryan was seen by many as the party's best hope for revitalizing the Illinois GOP. The party lost control of the governor's office and nearly every statewide office two years ago in the wake of a corruption scandal involving then-Gov. George Ryan, who has since been indicted. He is not related to Jack Ryan. During the primary, Ryan waved off rumors of damaging sex allegations in his sealed divorce records, assuring state officials there was nothing in the file to worry about. But the Tribune and Chicago TV station WLS sued for the records' release, and a California judge ordered them unsealed. The couple fought to keep the records sealed, saying the release could harm their 9-year-old son. "The fact that the Chicago Tribune sues for access to sealed custody documents and then takes unto itself the right to publish details of a custody dispute - over the objections of two parents who agree that the re-airing of their arguments will hurt their ability to co-parent their child and hurt their child - is truly outrageous," he said. Although most party leaders abandoned Ryan, Fitzgerald said Friday that he had encouraged him to stay in the race. "I think the public stoning of Jack Ryan is one of the most grotesque things I've seen in politics," the senator said. He said the party's bigwigs pushed Ryan out: "It was like piranhas. They smelled blood in the water and they just devoured him." Ryan won the GOP primary by more than 10 percentage points over his two closest rivals, dairy owner James Oberweis and state Sen. Steve Rauschenberger. Both Oberweis and Rauschenberger said this week that they would step in as Ryan's replacement if party leaders asked. Other possible candidates mentioned include U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, former Gov. Jim Edgar and Sen. Fitzgerald, though all three have said they are not interested. Likewise, archived versions of U.S. newspapers that published the same AP wire story (such as the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Seattle Times) do not include lead-ins identifying Barack Obama as "Kenyan-born." San Diego Union-Tribune Seattle Times Lannan, Maura Kelly. "Illinois' Jack Ryan Abandons Senate Bid." The Associated Press. 25 June 2004.

False

How so? Because in a syndicated report, published Sunday, June 27, 2004, by the Kenyan Standard Times, and which was, as of this report, available here.Likewise, archived versions of U.S. newspapers that published the same AP wire story (such as the San Diego Union-Tribune and the Seattle Times) do not include lead-ins identifying Barack Obama as "Kenyan-born."

FMD_train_538

Did Amazon Pay No Federal Income Taxes in 2017?

09/26/2018

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

True

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

FMD_train_830

The Reality Regarding ANWR

07/01/2008

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_644

Has there been a suggestion that H.R. 2847 contains a provision indicating the downfall of the U.S. dollar on July 1, 2014?

04/14/2014

The U.S. dollar will officially collapse after July 1, 2014, due to the implementation of H.R. 2847. On this date, U.S. House of Representatives Bill "H.R. 2847" goes into effect. It will usher in the true collapse of the U.S. dollar and make millions of Americans poorer overnight. You now have just several months to prepare. This claim about the passage of H.R. 2847 causing the U.S. dollar to collapse as of July 1, 2014, is another example of financial scare lore put out in conjunction with an investment come-on, in this case, an ominous sales pitch from Stansberry & Associates Investment Research LLC. This latest panic piece is featured in a Stansberry & Associates presentation that includes a number of alarming statements about how we in the U.S. are soon to experience a "near-complete shutdown of the American economy," will see "the savings of millions wiped out," will be living under the imposition of martial law by the federal government, and will be struggling in the aftermath of various apocalyptic financial scenarios. According to Stansberry & Associates, this remarkable, radical collapse of the United States monetary system and "our normal way of life" is set to occur in just a matter of months, similar to a recent conspiracy scare about the federal government's plan to eliminate 16 states from the U.S. in the near future. But wait... all one needs to avoid suffering from this devastating national calamity, which will collapse our entire monetary system and spell doom for the American way of life, is a little information. Information that can be yours if you just shell out $149 for a one-year subscription to Stansberry's Investment Advisory newsletter. As one wry commentator put it: in other words, if a financial company spews a bunch of alarming information and then promotes its product as something that will help protect people against this frightening scenario, it might lure gullible individuals into believing that a "fairly easy and inexpensive way to protect themselves" against losing their money is to send their money to that company instead. Unfortunately, such schemes work often enough to keep these types of schemers in business. So what is this all really about? H.R. 2847, also known as the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (or HIRE), was a Congressional bill passed into law in March 2010 that sought to provide payroll tax breaks and incentives for businesses to hire unemployed workers. A section of that bill, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (known as FATCA), aimed to eliminate the non-compliance of U.S. taxpayers who hold foreign accounts by requiring those taxpayers (including those living outside the U.S.) to report certain foreign accounts and offshore assets to the government, and by requiring foreign financial institutions to report information about the ownership of overseas assets held by U.S. taxpayers to the government. The problem originates from U.S. government efforts to prevent future offshore-banking tax scams like the UBS one in 2009. To keep better track of the flow of assets owned by U.S. citizens, FATCA requires bankers in other countries to send the IRS information about transactions by any of their customers who are Americans. Similarly, U.S. banks must report to the IRS information on their non-U.S.-citizen customers, so the IRS can send it on to their home countries. You can understand the motivation behind the rule. It's a big, interconnected world economy; huge sums can be transferred anywhere in an instant. Just as INTERPOL or the World Health Organization have a legitimate interest in sharing data, so too might taxing authorities. In principle, everyone should pay his or her fair share somewhere. As noted on the American Citizens Abroad website, starting July 1, 2014, FATCA will require foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to provide annual reports to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the name and address of each U.S. client, as well as the largest account balance in the year and total debits and credits of any account owned by a U.S. person. If an institution does not comply, the U.S. will impose a 30% withholding tax on all its transactions concerning U.S. securities, including the proceeds from the sale of securities. Additionally, FATCA requires any foreign company not listed on a stock exchange or any foreign partnership with 10% U.S. ownership to report to the IRS the names and tax identification numbers (TIN) of any U.S. owner. FATCA also requires U.S. citizens and green card holders who have foreign financial assets in excess of $50,000 (higher for those who are bona fide residents abroad) to complete a new Form 8938 to be filed with the 1040 tax return, starting with the fiscal year 2011. FATCA has faced criticism on several fronts, which the Treasury Department has attempted to counter in its own "Myth vs. FACTA" write-up. Critics argue that the costs of implementing it may outstrip the additional revenues it will generate, that it may prompt "capital flight" in the form of foreign financial institutions divesting themselves of U.S. assets, that foreign relations may be strained by the U.S. requiring foreign governments to gather and report (at their own expense) information on U.S. citizens, and that the law may make it difficult or impossible for U.S. citizens living and/or working abroad to open accounts in foreign banks. However, casting such a wide net is producing unintended consequences for some Americans who faithfully pay their taxes from afar. Banks around the world are suddenly rejecting Americans as clients or customers because they don't want the reporting and bureaucratic hassles, plus the potential exposure to severe penalties. Non-Americans are pulling their assets out of U.S. banks. I receive emails every day from American expats who say they are facing various problems bringing their long-standing foreign-based banking lives into compliance with this new law. Some of them say they're considering renouncing their citizenship. Over the years, I've had accounts with banks in England, Japan, Malaysia, China, and now Australia while living or working in those places, and I'm wondering what I need to worry about to ensure the remaining ones "comply." "I have always filed my U.S. taxes just as I am supposed to," says Brian Dublin, 47, an American businessman now based in Zug, Switzerland, who has lived overseas for many years, including stints in Russia. "However, as a result of FATCA, in the past year I have been kicked out of a Swiss bank that said, 'Hey, we love you, but we won't work with Americans.' I have also been kicked out of a Swiss pension fund. They told me they don't want any Americans in the fund. They don't want to work on behalf of the IRS," he says. "And on top of that, I spend many hours and many dollars each year filing U.S. taxes when I sometimes turn out to have zero liability for that year because I have paid a lot of tax somewhere else," Dublin adds. Dublin, a New York City native, says he will be eligible for Swiss nationality in the next few years and that if the situation has not dramatically changed, he will seriously consider renouncing his U.S. citizenship. Writing in the New American, Alex Newman argued the more dire side of FATCA, speculating that it could potentially result in a large-scale movement by foreign investors to pull out of U.S. assets and markets. Estimates suggest there is currently more than $21 trillion of foreign capital invested in American assets and markets, with about $10 trillion of that in the stock market. However, that could change as FATCA enforcement begins, possibly quickly. The Japanese Bankers Association, the European Banking Federation, the Institute of International Bankers, and others have all openly warned in recent years that some of their members could decide to divest from U.S. assets and markets in response to FATCA. Luxembourg Bankers' Association CEO Jean-Jacques Rommes, speaking to Democrats Abroad, warned that the best way for banks to lower compliance risks was simply to reduce the amount of American assets they hold. "In other words, divest from the U.S. market in general," he explained, as summarized by the Luxembourg Bankers' Association. Multiple reports have suggested that small and medium-sized firms, unable to bear the compliance costs or the crippling withholding taxes, would be especially likely to divest from American markets. "On the institutional side, the cost of becoming FATCA compliant may be prohibitive for some foreign institutions, and therefore they will divest from their American holdings," explained Douglas Goldstein, author of The Expatriate's Guide to Handling Money and Taxes and director of Profile Investment Services Ltd. Indeed, compliance costs borne by the private sector are expected to dwarf the amount of additional U.S. tax revenue—perhaps by hundreds of times. Goldstein explained: "Faced with the choice between paying to implement the new rules or divesting from U.S.-based assets, smaller foreign banks that can't afford to shoulder these costs may choose the latter. After all, there are plenty of promising new markets in which to invest." Needless to say, if foreign institutions started fleeing U.S. markets, the economic damage would be massive—potentially apocalyptic—especially considering U.S. trade deficits and America's outsized reliance on foreign investment and outside credit just to function. The full implementation of FATCA may, as some critics have maintained, ultimately prove more harmful to U.S. business interests and U.S. citizens living and working abroad than its benefits will merit. However, no credible source that isn't an investment firm trying to scare potential customers into forking over money for a newsletter subscription is seriously maintaining that a law passed five years ago will collapse the entire U.S. economic system, destroy the American way of life, and lead to the imposition of martial law.

False

Origins: This item about the passage of H.R. 2847 causing the U.S. dollar to collapse as of 1 July 2014 is another example financial scarelore put out in conjunction with an investment come-on, in this case an ominous sales pitch put out by the folks at Stansberry & Associates Investment Research LLC.is offered in a Stansberry & Associates presentation featuring a number of scary-sounding statements about how we in the U.S. are soon to experience a "near-complete shutdown of the American economy," will see "the savings of millions wiped out," will be living under the imposition of martial law by the federal government, and will be struggling in the aftermath of a number of other apocalyptic financial scenarios.And according to Stansberry & Associates, this remarkable, radical collapse of the United States monetary system and "our normal way of life" is going into effect in a mere matter of months (just like a similar recent conspiracy scare about the federal government's plan to eliminate 16 states from the U.S. in the very near future).But wait ... all one needs in order to avoid suffering from this devastating national calamity, one that will collapse our entire monetary system and spell doom for the American way of life, is a little information. Information that can be yours if you'll just shell out $149 for a one-year subscription to Stansberry's Investment Advisory newsletter. Or, as one wry commentator put it:H.R. 2847, also known as the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment Act (or HIRE), was a Congressional bill passed into law in March 2010 that sought to provide payroll tax breaks and incentives for businesses to hire unemployed workers. A section of that bill, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (known as FATCA), sought to eliminate the non-compliance of U.S. taxpayers who hold foreign accounts by requiring those taxpayers (including those living outside the U.S.) to report certain foreign accounts and offshore assets to the government, and by requiring foreign financial institutions to report information about the ownership of overseas assets held by U.S. taxpayers to the government:As noted on the American Citizens Abroad web site:FATCA has been the subject of criticisms on a number of fronts (which the Treasury Department has attempted to counter in its own "Myth vs. FACTA" write-up), among them that the costs of implementing it may outstrip the additional revenues it will bring in, that it may prompt "capital flight" in the form of foreign financial institutions divesting themselves of U.S. assets, that foreign relations may be strained by the U.S. requiring foreign governments to gather and report (at their own expense) information on U.S. citizens, and that the law may make it difficult or impossible for U.S. citizens living and/or working abroad to open accounts in foreign banks:

FMD_train_1043

Did the FBI Once Deem 'It's a Wonderful Life' Communist Propaganda?

12/22/2021

During the 2021 holiday season, internet users enthusiastically shared articles and posts that described a fascinating episode from the history of a classic American Christmas movie, "It's a Wonderful Life." On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story. Independent reported that shared own accounts Those accounts were broadly accurate, and based on high-quality primary documentary evidence. Although the FBI did not ever formally, as an institution, declare "It's a Wonderful Life" to be communist propaganda, FBI agents and informants investigated the movie, and the people behind it, as such. As part of a sweeping investigation ordered by bureau director J. Edgar Hoover, a special agent in 1949 included the film in a list of "motion pictures disclosing communist propaganda therein." We are issuing a rating of "true." That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades. available here The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry: listed Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature." instructed The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein." entitled According to the author(s) of the briefing, Frank Capra's movie is noteworthy because: the two credited screenwriters, husband-and-wife team Frances Goodrich and Albert Hackett, were supposedly close associates of known communists; the film negatively portrays the villainous local businessman Mr. Potter, which is "a common trick used by communists"; and the storyline appears to have been borrowed from a putative earlier Russian film entitled "The Letter." The first two sections of the briefing can be read in full below: According to the Informants [redacted] and [redacted] in this picture the screen credits again fail to reflect the Communist support given to the screen writers. According to [redacted] the writers Frances Goodrick and Albert Hackett were very close to known Communists and on one occasion in the recent past while these two writers were doing a picture for Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Goodrick and Hackett practically lived with known Communists and were observed eating luncheon daily with such Communists as Lester Cole, screen writer, and Earl Robinson, screen writer. Both of these individuals are identified in Section I of this memorandum as Communists. With regard to the picture Its A Wonderful Life, [redacted] stated in substance that the film represented a rather obvious attempt to discredit bankers by casting Lionel Barrymore as a scrooge-type so that he would be the most hated man in the picture. This, according to these sources, is a common trick used by Communists. In addition, [redacted] stated that, in his opinion, this picture deliberately maligned the upper class, attempting to show the people who had money were mean and despicable characters. [Redacted] related that if he had made this picture portraying the banker, he would have shown this individual to have been following the rules as laid down by the State Bank Examiners in connection with making loans. Further, [redacted] stated that the scene wouldn't have suffered at all in portraying the banker as a man who was protecting funds put in his care by private individuals and adhering to the rules governing the loan of that money rather than portraying the part as it was shown. In summary, [redacted] stated that it was not necessary to make the banker such a mean character and I would never have done it that way. Magazine, Smithsonian, and Kat Eschner. The Weird Story of the FBI and Its a Wonderful Life. Smithsonian Magazine, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/weird-story-fbi-and-its-wonderful-life-180967587/. Accessed 22 Dec. 2021.

True

On Dec. 21, for example, the London Independent reported that: "'It's a Wonderful Life' was once considered communist propaganda by the FBI," while various outlets shared their own accounts of the story.That description of the movie, which was released in December 1946, can be found in an archived and redacted copy of the FBI report on "Communist infiltration into the motion picture industry, available here. Specifically, it can be found on Page 12 in the ninth of 15 dossiers released under the Freedom of Information Act at some point in the ensuing decades.The sender of this 1949 update to the report is listed as one "H.B. Fletcher," but it's not clear who specifically wrote the "It's a Wonderful Life" entry:Although the FBI does not appear to have ever "officially" declared or designated the film as communist propaganda, it's quite clear those agents involved in the investigation of Hollywood (codenamed "COMPIC") were far from agnostic on the socialist, even Soviet inspiration behind the Christmas classic. Indeed, Hoover instructed Richard Hood, special agent in charge at the Los Angeles field office, to limit his team's criticism and reviews to films "which are obviously communist propaganda in nature."The entry on "It's a Wonderful Life" appears in the fourth section of the report ("Communist Influence in Motion Pictures"), under a sub-section entitled "Analysis of Motion Pictures Disclosing Communist Propaganda Therein."

FMD_train_398

Says that under Rick Perrys plan, Texas has cut funding for public schools by 25%.

05/07/2013

Fix Austin Schools, a group advocating voter approval of four bond propositions benefiting the Austin school district, slammed Gov. Rick Perrys education plan in a leaflet fielded by local voters in early May 2013.Under the word cut in capital letters, one side of the leaflet says: Under Rick Perry, Texas has CUT funding for public schools by 25%, a conclusion attributed to PolitiFact.Lynda Rife, a consultant to the group, told us the claim echoed our January 2013 review of Perrys statement to reporters at the time that Texas public school funding grew at three times the rate of enrollment from 2002 to 2012.In raw terms, there was a basis for Perrys claim. However, after adjusting for inflation and the effect of an annual tax swap put in motion by lawmakers and Perry in 2006, we concluded that Texas schools in 2012 were fielding 25 percent less in state aid than what they reaped in 2002. Perrys claim drew arating of False.At the time, we looked at enrollment changes and at both overall school spending, counting dollars from state, federal and local sources, and state education aid alone.EnrollmentEnrollment increased about 20 percent from 2001-02 to 2011-12, from more than 4.1 million to nearly 5 million students, according to a December 2012 report by the Texas Education Agency. By email, agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe told us 2012-13 enrollment was expected to exceed 5 million, a figure subsequently confirmed, Ratcliffe told us recently by email.Overall spendingOverall school expenditures totaled $27.9 billion in 2002 and $44.2 billion in 2012, according to a chart from the Legislative Budget Board, which tracks fiscal issues for lawmakers.That makes for a difference of 58 percent, though thats also before adjusting for inflation, which the boards staff did by converting figures to 2004 dollars using an inflation adjuster devised by the federal government, the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government.In 2004 dollars, Texas public school spending in 2002 totaled $30.1 billion. In 2012, the total was $33.3 billion--11 percent greater than in 2002.By this measure, then, it looks like school enrollment went up faster than spending. Then again, we learned, these figures were not behind Perrys statement.State spending alonePerrys then-spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, told us by email that Perry was referring to the difference in state education spending alone as those are the funds the state has control over.The budget boards chart shows $10.9 billion in state spending on the schools in 2002 and $18.9 billion in 2012, for a 73 percent difference, or a little more than Perrys declared 70 percent.Adjusting for inflation, though, reduces the increase to 20 percent, which was still outpacing enrollment growth. In 2004 dollars, such spending was $14.2 billion in 2012, compared with $11.8 billion in 2002.Another crucial factorAnalyst Eva DeLuna Castro of the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities and school lobbyist Lynn Moak, a former Texas Education Agency official, each pointed out another wrinkle, suggesting that any consideration of state education spending should take into account changes in law approved in 2006 resulting in the state picking up about $7 billion more in annual costs in return for school districts cutting local maintenance and operation property tax rates.Castro said by email: The property tax cut was $14.2 billion a biennium, or $7.1 billion every year. That means the state had to put in that amount of money a year to offset local property taxes falling by the same amount.The shift in funding sources did not, in itself, step up aid received by the schools, Castro said.Moak said by phone: This was simply a source-of-funds transfer.To adjust for the annual cost shift, we subtracted $7.1 billion from the state spending in 2012, suggesting a $0.9 billion difference from the 2002 spending. However, adjusting for inflation makes the 2012 state spending equal $8.2 billion in 2002 dollars--25 percent less than the $10.9 billion spent in 2002, which also would mean that spending trailed enrollment growth.For this article, finally, we weighed the message that the reduced spending was Perrys education plan. Perry was governor through all the spending decisions, but the reality is that Republican majorities of the 150-member House and 31-member Senate were needed to pass the decisions into law. Perry was key, but he didn't dictate actions. No governor can.Our rulingThe pro-bonds group said that under Perrys education plan, Texas has cut funding for public schools by 25 percent.State education spending in 2012 was 25 percent lower than it was in 2002, adjusting for inflation and the real effects of the 2006 law giving the state more responsibility for education revenues.Yet Perry didnt cause the reduction by himself; lawmakers acted, too. This clarification is missing from the groups statement, which we rate as Mostly True.

True

Fix Austin Schools, a group advocating voter approval of four bond propositions benefiting the Austin school district, slammed Gov. Rick Perrys education plan in a leaflet fielded by local voters in early May 2013.Under the word cut in capital letters, one side of the leaflet says: Under Rick Perry, Texas has CUT funding for public schools by 25%, a conclusion attributed to PolitiFact.Lynda Rife, a consultant to the group, told us the claim echoed our January 2013 review of Perrys statement to reporters at the time that Texas public school funding grew at three times the rate of enrollment from 2002 to 2012.In raw terms, there was a basis for Perrys claim. However, after adjusting for inflation and the effect of an annual tax swap put in motion by lawmakers and Perry in 2006, we concluded that Texas schools in 2012 were fielding 25 percent less in state aid than what they reaped in 2002. Perrys claim drew arating of False.At the time, we looked at enrollment changes and at both overall school spending, counting dollars from state, federal and local sources, and state education aid alone.EnrollmentEnrollment increased about 20 percent from 2001-02 to 2011-12, from more than 4.1 million to nearly 5 million students, according to a December 2012 report by the Texas Education Agency. By email, agency spokeswoman Debbie Ratcliffe told us 2012-13 enrollment was expected to exceed 5 million, a figure subsequently confirmed, Ratcliffe told us recently by email.Overall spendingOverall school expenditures totaled $27.9 billion in 2002 and $44.2 billion in 2012, according to a chart from the Legislative Budget Board, which tracks fiscal issues for lawmakers.That makes for a difference of 58 percent, though thats also before adjusting for inflation, which the boards staff did by converting figures to 2004 dollars using an inflation adjuster devised by the federal government, the Implicit Price Deflator for State and Local Government.In 2004 dollars, Texas public school spending in 2002 totaled $30.1 billion. In 2012, the total was $33.3 billion--11 percent greater than in 2002.By this measure, then, it looks like school enrollment went up faster than spending. Then again, we learned, these figures were not behind Perrys statement.State spending alonePerrys then-spokeswoman, Catherine Frazier, told us by email that Perry was referring to the difference in state education spending alone as those are the funds the state has control over.The budget boards chart shows $10.9 billion in state spending on the schools in 2002 and $18.9 billion in 2012, for a 73 percent difference, or a little more than Perrys declared 70 percent.Adjusting for inflation, though, reduces the increase to 20 percent, which was still outpacing enrollment growth. In 2004 dollars, such spending was $14.2 billion in 2012, compared with $11.8 billion in 2002.Another crucial factorAnalyst Eva DeLuna Castro of the liberal Center for Public Policy Priorities and school lobbyist Lynn Moak, a former Texas Education Agency official, each pointed out another wrinkle, suggesting that any consideration of state education spending should take into account changes in law approved in 2006 resulting in the state picking up about $7 billion more in annual costs in return for school districts cutting local maintenance and operation property tax rates.Castro said by email: The property tax cut was $14.2 billion a biennium, or $7.1 billion every year. That means the state had to put in that amount of money a year to offset local property taxes falling by the same amount.The shift in funding sources did not, in itself, step up aid received by the schools, Castro said.Moak said by phone: This was simply a source-of-funds transfer.To adjust for the annual cost shift, we subtracted $7.1 billion from the state spending in 2012, suggesting a $0.9 billion difference from the 2002 spending. However, adjusting for inflation makes the 2012 state spending equal $8.2 billion in 2002 dollars--25 percent less than the $10.9 billion spent in 2002, which also would mean that spending trailed enrollment growth.For this article, finally, we weighed the message that the reduced spending was Perrys education plan. Perry was governor through all the spending decisions, but the reality is that Republican majorities of the 150-member House and 31-member Senate were needed to pass the decisions into law. Perry was key, but he didn't dictate actions. No governor can.Our rulingThe pro-bonds group said that under Perrys education plan, Texas has cut funding for public schools by 25 percent.State education spending in 2012 was 25 percent lower than it was in 2002, adjusting for inflation and the real effects of the 2006 law giving the state more responsibility for education revenues.Yet Perry didnt cause the reduction by himself; lawmakers acted, too. This clarification is missing from the groups statement, which we rate as Mostly True.

FMD_train_982

Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education.

01/14/2011

A budget storm is brewing in Tallahassee, and Senate President Mike Haridopolos is making clear that no agency, program or area may be spared from impending cuts.Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, met with reporters on Jan. 12, 2011, to offer his outlook regarding Florida's $3.62 billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Haridopolos predicted that it would be difficult to pursue any significant tax cuts -- like those being championed by Gov. Rick Scott -- and that everyone should expect spending cuts.That includes education funding, he warned.More than $3 billion in federal stimulus funds have helped the state fill education budget holes for the past two years, but those funds sunset this spring. And while some additional federal funds are coming available, about $555 million, Florida's budget picture remains bleak, Haridopolos said.Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education, Haridopolos was quoted as saying in theOrlando Sentinel. It's a very difficult spot to be in, and the reason we wanted to make the adjustments to the class-size amendment defeated by voters in November. Haridopolos was referring to an amendment proposed by the Legislature to ease class-size requirements at Florida schools so the state could save money. That measure failed to receive the needed 60 percent voter approval to pass.For this fact check, we decided to zero in on Haridopolos' claim that half of state general revenue goes to fund education.Understanding the state budget and education fundingIn his claim, Haridopolos is talking about a subset of the state budget, which is a subset of state's share of education funding in Florida, which is a subset of overall education funding in Florida. Oh, and he's not just talking about K-12 spending, but also state spending on the state university system, pre-Kindergarten and student aid programs.We'll walk you through it.Let's start with the state budget, which you can imagine by picturing a three-legged stool.Leg one: General revenue (what Haridopolos is talking about). General revenue makes up about 34 percent of the current state budget. The money mostly comes from sales taxes -- though some comes from telephone and cable taxes, corporate income taxes (which Scott has vowed to phase out), and taxes on property transactions. The state has broad discretion on how general revenue is spent.Leg two: State trust funds. State trust funds make up about 27 percent of the current state budget. That is money collected by the state to be used for a specific purpose. The state gas tax is funneled into a transportation trust fund, for example, to pay for road building projects. Florida Lottery proceeds roll into the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. (The Legislature, at times, has raided trust funds to help balance the budget. )Leg three: Federal dollars. Federal dollars this year comprise about 39 percent of the state budget. Federal dollars primarily fund the state's Medicaid program, but also help fund education, road projects and the criminal justice system.So while each leg helps fund education programs from pre-K through college, Haridopolos is focusing on the general revenue fund. In the current budget, 56 percent of all state education spending came out of general revenue, and it's the portion of state spending the Legislature can most easily control.Now, here's a second important primer.The state doesn't fund education all by itself. Hardly. Local school districts contribute billions of dollars on their own through local property taxes. Most of those property taxes, believe it or not, are set at rates mandated by the Legislature through something called the Required Local Effort. In short, school districts are forced to collect the amount of property taxes the Legislature decides, or the districts won't get to share in state funding.In addition, there are other property taxes individual school districts have discretion over. None of those funds are technically state revenues for the purpose of this analysis.If this isn't confusing enough already, the context of Haridopolos' statement also is important. He's talking about potential cuts in education funding because of less federal dollars and lower sales tax receipts that are affecting the state's bottom line. One way to offset those cuts would be to raise the Required Local Effort, but the Republican-led Legislature that sets the tax has been opposed to that idea. Drilling down on general revenueNow, sticking to Haridopolos' statement and examining only general revenue, the Senate president is correct.Of the $23.8 billion of general revenue budgeted to be spent between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, $12.5 billion was directed to education -- pre-K through college.Divide one into the other and you see that education spending currently equals more than 52 percent of general revenue. You can see the full breakdown of general revenue spending on Page 5 ofthis report.Haridopolos spokesman David Bishop said the state expects to receive $22.6 billion in general revenue for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.If you look at the overall state budget, education funding made up about 32 percent ($22.4 billion) of the entire $70 billion state budget in 2010-2011. RulingAs Haridopolos talked in Tallahassee about the grim state budget prospects for this coming year, he said state education funding might see cuts. Part of the problem is just how much of the budget is tied to education funding, he said -- half of the state's general revenue fund.To be honest, Florida's education funding structure is way more complicated than Haridopolos let on. But he's right that the state general revenue fund, which is a little more than a third of the overall state budget, is being used primarily to fund education.We rate this statement True.

True

A budget storm is brewing in Tallahassee, and Senate President Mike Haridopolos is making clear that no agency, program or area may be spared from impending cuts.Haridopolos, R-Merritt Island, met with reporters on Jan. 12, 2011, to offer his outlook regarding Florida's $3.62 billion budget shortfall for the coming fiscal year. Haridopolos predicted that it would be difficult to pursue any significant tax cuts -- like those being championed by Gov. Rick Scott -- and that everyone should expect spending cuts.That includes education funding, he warned.More than $3 billion in federal stimulus funds have helped the state fill education budget holes for the past two years, but those funds sunset this spring. And while some additional federal funds are coming available, about $555 million, Florida's budget picture remains bleak, Haridopolos said.Whether you like to admit it or not, half our general revenue goes to education, Haridopolos was quoted as saying in theOrlando Sentinel. It's a very difficult spot to be in, and the reason we wanted to make the adjustments to the class-size amendment defeated by voters in November. Haridopolos was referring to an amendment proposed by the Legislature to ease class-size requirements at Florida schools so the state could save money. That measure failed to receive the needed 60 percent voter approval to pass.For this fact check, we decided to zero in on Haridopolos' claim that half of state general revenue goes to fund education.Understanding the state budget and education fundingIn his claim, Haridopolos is talking about a subset of the state budget, which is a subset of state's share of education funding in Florida, which is a subset of overall education funding in Florida. Oh, and he's not just talking about K-12 spending, but also state spending on the state university system, pre-Kindergarten and student aid programs.We'll walk you through it.Let's start with the state budget, which you can imagine by picturing a three-legged stool.Leg one: General revenue (what Haridopolos is talking about). General revenue makes up about 34 percent of the current state budget. The money mostly comes from sales taxes -- though some comes from telephone and cable taxes, corporate income taxes (which Scott has vowed to phase out), and taxes on property transactions. The state has broad discretion on how general revenue is spent.Leg two: State trust funds. State trust funds make up about 27 percent of the current state budget. That is money collected by the state to be used for a specific purpose. The state gas tax is funneled into a transportation trust fund, for example, to pay for road building projects. Florida Lottery proceeds roll into the Educational Enhancement Trust Fund. (The Legislature, at times, has raided trust funds to help balance the budget.)Leg three: Federal dollars. Federal dollars this year comprise about 39 percent of the state budget. Federal dollars primarily fund the state's Medicaid program, but also help fund education, road projects and the criminal justice system.So while each leg helps fund education programs from pre-K through college, Haridopolos is focusing on the general revenue fund. In the current budget, 56 percent of all state education spending came out of general revenue, and it's the portion of state spending the Legislature can most easily control.Now, here's a second important primer.The state doesn't fund education all by itself. Hardly. Local school districts contribute billions of dollars on their own through local property taxes. Most of those property taxes, believe it or not, are set at rates mandated by the Legislature through something called the Required Local Effort. In short, school districts are forced to collect the amount of property taxes the Legislature decides, or the districts won't get to share in state funding.In addition, there are other property taxes individual school districts have discretion over. None of those funds are technically state revenues for the purpose of this analysis.If this isn't confusing enough already, the context of Haridopolos' statement also is important. He's talking about potential cuts in education funding because of less federal dollars and lower sales tax receipts that are affecting the state's bottom line. One way to offset those cuts would be to raise the Required Local Effort, but the Republican-led Legislature that sets the tax has been opposed to that idea.Drilling down on general revenueNow, sticking to Haridopolos' statement and examining only general revenue, the Senate president is correct.Of the $23.8 billion of general revenue budgeted to be spent between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2011, $12.5 billion was directed to education -- pre-K through college.Divide one into the other and you see that education spending currently equals more than 52 percent of general revenue. You can see the full breakdown of general revenue spending on Page 5 ofthis report.Haridopolos spokesman David Bishop said the state expects to receive $22.6 billion in general revenue for the 2011-2012 fiscal year.If you look at the overall state budget, education funding made up about 32 percent ($22.4 billion) of the entire $70 billion state budget in 2010-2011.

FMD_train_1025

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

05/03/2022

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

True

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

FMD_train_641

Murder of Jamie Bulger

07/17/2001

On February 12, 1993, two-year-old James Bulger was brutally murdered by ten-year-olds Jonathan (Jon) Venables and Robert (Bobbie) Thompson in Liverpool, England. For example, a small boy who was to turn three in March was taken from a shopping mall in Liverpool by two ten-year-old boys. Jamie Bulger walked away from his mother for only a second, and Jon Venables took his hand and led him out of the mall with his friend Robert Thompson. They took Jamie on a walk for over two and a half miles, stopping every now and then to torture the poor little boy, who was constantly crying for his mommy. Finally, they stopped at a railway track, where they brutally kicked him, threw stones at him, rubbed paint in his eyes, and pushed batteries up his anus. They then left his beaten body on the tracks so a train could run him over to hide the mess they had created. These two boys, despite being young, understood that what they did was wrong, as evidenced by their attempts to make it look like an accident. This week, Lady Justice Butler-Sloss awarded the two boys anonymity for the rest of their lives when they leave custody with new identities. We cannot let this happen. They will also leave early this year, having served just over half of their sentence. One paper even stated that Robert may go on to university. They are getting away with their crime. They need to pay, and we have to do something to ensure they are held accountable for their horrific actions. They took Jamie's life violently, and in return, they get a new life. Please add your name and location to the list and forward it to friends and family. Please copy this email instead of forwarding it so we do not get > at the beginning of sentences. If you are the 200th person to sign, please forward this email to [email protected], addressing it to Lady Justice Butler-Sloss. Then start the list over again and send it to your friends and family. The Love-Bug virus took less than 72 hours to reach the world. I hope this does too. We need to protect our family and friends from individuals like Robert and Jon. One day, they may be living next to you and your small children without your knowledge. If Robert and Jon could be so evil at ten, imagine what they could do as adults. With only one exception (the batteries in the victim's anus; they went into his mouth), the details of the crime as outlined in the email are accurate. The boy was taken from a shopping mall while there with his mother. A video surveillance camera captured footage of the two killers leading James away. The child was brutalized as he was forced to walk along with the boys. Witnesses later reported seeing the boys dragging, pushing, and carrying the weeping two-year-old during a disjointed journey through the streets of Liverpool. They did kill him in the manner described, albeit more brutally than even the text of the e-petition suggests. Two days after the murder, James' remains were found on a lonely stretch of railroad track. He was naked from the waist down; his shoes, socks, trousers, and underpants had been removed. His penis had been manipulated by his abductors, but he had not been anally penetrated. He had been beaten to death with rocks, bricks, and an iron bar. As the boys hammered at him, they splattered him with model airplane paint stolen days earlier. Once he was dead, his killers laid him on the tracks, and his body was cut in two by a passing train. The killers hoped to hide their crime by having it mistaken for an accidental death of a young child who had foolishly played on the tracks. Venables and Thompson were taken into custody a few days later. Each sought to blame the other for the killing, but both eventually confessed. They were tried, found guilty of murder, sentenced, and placed in separate detention homes. The killers have not seen each other since the trial. All this is true and horrifying. Yet even so, there's no point in signing the petition or urging others to do so. Beyond all the usual problems with e-petitions, one issue specific to this case undermines the utility of such a plan: the situation being decried is already a done deal. On January 8, 2001, the High Court of England guaranteed both Venables and Thompson lifelong anonymity, plus an unprecedented open-ended injunction barring any publicity about them. Each of these young men was released in June 2001 when they turned 18. The email states that the two killers "will also leave early this year, only serving just over half of their sentence." That statement is false. Although there is no theoretical maximum length of sentence imposed, a minimum sentence of eight years had been set, and that minimum was satisfied. The boys were detained "at Her Majesty's pleasure" (without a maximum fixed term). Her Majesty's Pleasure (HMP) sentences are imposed only in cases of murder and manslaughter committed by children under 18. In these cases, the judge sets a tariff (minimum term, defined as the period required for retribution and deterrence). Once the tariff has been satisfied, the prisoner is assessed based on the likely risk he will pose to the outside community. Therefore, a killer sentenced to such a term is eligible for release once the tariff has been served, provided he does not impress the court as posing a danger to society. The judge at Venables' and Thompson's November 1993 trial set an eight-year tariff. In early 1994, Lord Taylor, then Lord Chief Justice, recommended increasing this minimum to ten years. Michael Howard, Home Secretary, imposed a 15-year sentence on Venables and Thompson in July 1994, but his actions were ruled unlawful by the High Court and the Court of Appeals in 1996 and struck down. Lord Woolf, the current Lord Chief Justice, ruled in 2000 that the killers' tariff was eight years, a term that was reached on February 21, 2001. Venables' and Thompson's sentences were thus eight years each, and they have been served. Had the sentences unlawfully imposed by Michael Howard been upheld, then the e-petition's claim about the killers only having served "half their sentences" would be relevant. The anonymity guarantee and publication ban were set in place by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, president of the High Court's Family Division. She was convinced the pair would be genuinely at risk if their identities and locations were disclosed, hence her ruling. "Although the crime of these two young men was especially heinous, they have the right of all citizens to the protection of the law." She said people other than James Bulger's family "continue to feel such hatred and revulsion at the shocking crime and a desire for revenge that some at least of them might well engage in vigilante or revenge attacks." She may well have been right, especially in light of threats received. Dame Butler-Sloss banned the media from publishing any information leading to the identification or disclosure of the whereabouts of Venables or Thompson, including photographs and descriptions of their appearance. She also banned, for 12 months, publication of information about their eight-year stay in local authority secure units. Even after that, confidential information relating to their treatment and therapy cannot be published. The judge admitted she was aware the injunctions she imposed might not be fully effective outside England and Wales. She banned the domestic media from giving wider circulation to material from the Internet or media elsewhere if it was likely to breach the injunction. Was it right for Venables and Thompson to be protected from the public? Some said yes, arguing that otherwise they'd have been torn limb from limb (and that would render society no better than those it would prosecute for such crimes), or that children (which the defendants were at the time of the Bulger murder) should not be held accountable for a crime—even a heinous one—in the same manner that we hold adults. Others said no, asserting that the public had a right to know where potentially dangerous felons are, and some on that side of the fence claimed that there are some crimes which cannot fully be expiated by time served. Jon Venables' reprieve from incarceration proved to be temporary when he violated the terms of his release by downloading and distributing indecent images of children and was returned to jail in March 2010. In July 2013, the U.K. parole board confirmed that Venables had been granted parole for a second time, although that body declined to provide details about when he would be released. In June 2006, the following related item began circulating: Hello friends, I am just so angry, frustrated, and really upset at what has happened at the Livingston Shopping Centre that I needed to let you all know the "truth" behind the mongrel murderer. About three years ago, when I was working at the prison, we found out that one of the boys (at the time aged about 12) who abducted James Bulger from a shopping centre in the U.K., then brutally raped and murdered him, had reached the age of 18 and had been sent out to Australia with a new identity for his family, etc. Long story short, he was given the name of Dante Arthurs; his grandfather's name is Arthur Dante, and his family moved into a house in Canning Vale. When the prison staff got wind of this, it was all supposed to be kept hushed up; it was some sort of prisoner exchange deal the Australian Government set up. Soon after he got here, he assaulted a 12-year-old girl in a park in Canning Vale and consequently came to Hakea prison, but for only about six weeks, as they couldn't get enough evidence on him, and the incident was brushed under the mat. His parents used to visit him, and their photos were on the computers at work, and I clearly recall seeing his mum at the Livingston shops one day. I even had his address, and because I've got friends and family in the area, I felt I had a right to tell them—stuff the prisons! I had even driven past his house in Lakeview Rise estate in Canning Vale! Anyway, when this happened yesterday, I said to Ron, it'd be interesting to see if it's that Dante Arthurs guy from the U.K., and sure enough, today we find out that it is him. I am, along with a lot of others, absolutely furious that the mongrel arsehole was allowed to come here via the Government in the first place and that he was allowed to appear to live a normal life! Why haven't the police done something about this? He should not be allowed to breathe air; he is the scum of the earth. And tonight he would be sitting back in a comfortable cell in prison, having just had a reasonable hot dinner and be watching TV! That innocent little girl and her poor family will never ever be the same again—all because the weak Justice System and Government allowed him to live in our country! There is a register for paedophiles so that the community is allowed to know where they're living, and yet this piece of shit can live on our doorstep with a new identity. People whinge about illegal immigrants; what about this? It will be interesting to see what unfolds over the next few days, but I wouldn't be at all surprised if he's whisked out of the country in the same manner he was brought here. Then again, knowing our pathetic laws, we'll probably keep him here in our justice system, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars to feed and entertain him, PLUS the do-gooders will believe in their minds that they can rehabilitate him! I was just going to type "sorry," but I'm not at all sorry for alerting my friends to something that should be publicly known. Stay safe, talk soon. This message refers to the rape and murder of eight-year-old Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu in a suburban shopping center restroom in Canning Vale, Australia, on June 26, 2006. A 21-year-old man named Dante Wyndham Arthurs was arrested and charged in connection with that case, and the message reproduced above claims Arthurs was also one of Jamie Bulger's killers, renamed and relocated to Australia after having served out his sentence as a juvenile in England (even though both of the principals in the Bulger murder were then at least 23 years old). The British High Commission and Australian police have denied any link between the Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu and Jamie Bulger killings. The British High Commission has ruled out claims that a man charged over the rape and murder of a Perth schoolgirl was one of two notorious English child killers. Perth police also denied that Dante Wyndham Arthurs, 21, of the Perth suburb of Canning Vale, was one of the killers of British boy James Bulger. Clive Hunton, of the British High Commission in Canberra, said there was "no connection between the man arrested in Western Australia and the individuals involved in the James Bulger case." Arthurs was remanded in custody after appearing in Perth Magistrates Court charged with wilful murder, sexual penetration of a child, and deprivation of liberty. He was charged following the discovery of the body of Sofia Rodriguez-Urrutia-Shu on the floor of a shopping centre toilet. The fact that Dante Arthurs was born in Australia (and was not an English immigrant using an assumed identity) has been confirmed by both his birth notice and the doctor who delivered him. Also, his fingerprints do not match those of Jonathan (Jon) Venables or Robert (Bobbie) Thompson, the murderers of James Bulger. The emailed rumor quoted above was presented as if it were written by a prison officer. According to the West Australian, that message is being investigated by Australian authorities: The Department of Corrective Services has confirmed that an investigation was underway into an email claiming to be from a prison officer, which was sent to thousands of people across Australia. "The email appears to have come from outside the department," a spokeswoman said. Nonetheless, rumors persisted that Robert Thompson and Jon Venables were relocated to Australia, and in May 2008, Australian MP Liz Cunningham raised the issue of investigating whether the pair had been accepted by Queensland authorities. In March 2010, the BBC reported that Jon Venables (then age 27) was back in prison after having breached the terms of his release. Image caption: Denise Fergus, the mother of murdered two-year-old James Bulger, attends a press conference to launch an appeal to raise funds for bullied children on March 14, 2008, in Liverpool, England. The Red Balloon Learner Centre bearing James Bulger's name will be a sanctuary for bullied children.

NEI

This message refers to the rape and murder of 8-year-old Sofia Rodrigez-Urrutia-Shu in a suburban shopping center restroom in Canning Vale, Australia, on 26 June 2006. A 21-year-old man named Dante Wyndham Arthurs was arrested and charged in connection with that case, and the message reproduced above claims Arthurs was also one of Jamie Bulger's killers, renamed and relocated to Australia after having served out his sentence as a juvenile in England (even though both of the principals in the Bulger murder were then at least 23 years old). The British High Commission and Australian police have denied any link between the Sofia Rodrigez-Urrutia-Shu and Jamie Bulger killings:

FMD_train_274

It is stated that Texas charter schools receive full state funding per student, whereas district schools, which educate 95% of students, receive approximately one-third of their funding from the state with the remainder coming from local property taxes, leading to the high taxes. Districts receive less funding due to limited resources being directed towards charter schools.

08/15/2018

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

True

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

FMD_train_1325

Texas Horse Hunt

05/20/2013

Claim: A Texas business provides big game hunters with an opportunity to participate in "horse hunt adventures." Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2013] There's a blog going around about "Texas Horse Hunts" where horses are hunted on paid hunts....could this possibly be true? Origins: In May 2013, social media were abuzz with chatter regarding (and at least one petition calling for the shutdown of) a three-month-old blog site for an outfit advertising Texas Horse Hunts, presented as an opportunity for big game horse hunters to bag themselves some equines: petition blog site If youve dreamed of big game horse hunting in Texas and are interested in a superior, top quality, exciting and successful horse hunting experience, join Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions, LLC and Master Guide Tom D. Welderman IV on your next horse hunt adventure. Youll enjoy some of the most dynamic and beautiful wilderness in the world! We guide areas within National Wildlife Refuges and receive the finest guiding expertise, personal service and attention to detail found anywhere. Im a guide because I love horse hunting, Texas, the outdoors and because I enjoy sharing these things with other humans who appreciate what horse hunts have to offer. Our goal, aside from helping you harvest a magnificent trophy horse, is to share with you this incredible state and all that it has to offer. When you leave one of our camps as a friend, we want you to take home fond lifetime memories of your horse hunt experience. The quality of your horse and your whole experience is my primary concern. We are not narcissistic; your hunt with us is not about us but about you and your horse. This is your horse hunt and we want to help fulfill all of your expectations. Multiple factors pointed to the whole thing being a satirical hoax, however, including: The lack of any previous news coverage or any effort to publicize the business beyond a single blog entry. The photographs on the Texas Horse Hunts blog site were all lifted from other web sites. The picture of the dead equine in the back of a truck was taken from a May 2009 blog entry for Rogues Gallery Kennel (a rescue kennel for sled dogs) about the picking up of a naturally deceased horse in Alaska; the photo of a pair of horses lying dead on the ground was taken from a 2010 news article about San Joaquin County Sheriffs Office investigating five dead horses believed to have died of thirst in a field off Interstate 580 in California; and the picture of a single (apparently undead) brown horse lying on the ground is a stock photo from 2004. Rogues Gallery Kennel lying dead news article stock photo Joseph Robertia, the rightful owner of the first photograph penned an article for The Redoubt Reporter describing the harm the theft of his photo had caused for him and his family, saying (in part): article Hi, my name is Joseph, and I hunt horses with sticks, crossbows and firearms. And if you believe this, Ive got some prime swampland in Florida to sell you. Sadly, though, several people do believe it, thanks in part to a photo stolen from my personal blog, https://www.rogueskennel.com, and used out of context on a site proclaiming to be for Texas Horse Hunts. Not hunting on horseback, but actually hunting and killing horses. It's left me having to assert and explain something so bizarre I never thought Id have to utter these words I have not, do not and would not ever hunt horses. The photo they found on my site and reposted was taken in Alaska, after my wife and I retrieved a horse that died of natural causes from Sterling residents who had no way to bury it and didnt want it to attract summer bears. The part that really smarts is that the most extensive damage to our reputations was not done by the initial website post. Rather, it was from the dozens of outraged animal rights activists on Facebook pages and other social media sites who began spreading the photo with lightning speed. (A week after we published this article, all the photos and descriptive information were removed from the Texas Horse Hunt page.) The promotional material in the Texas Horse Hunts blog states that "All horse meats will be processed at our facilities," but laws forced the shutdown of the last remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. (including two in Texas) back in 2007, and no such facilities are currently legally operating in the U.S. horse slaughterhouses We could find no record of "Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions" being registered as an LLC (limited liability company) in Texas or any other state. The blog site contains obvious jokes such as "You will have the option of killing your horse traditionally (with a stick)," and a "Brief History of Horse Hunting" article describing Henry VIII as a horse hunting enthusiast who "instituted a policy of horse hunting exclusively by club" and referencing a "Back to the Future lead actor who's a vocal supporter of the sport." article One of the best ways of determining whether web-advertised businesses of suspect nature are legitimate is by attempting to purchase what they're supposedly offering for sale (because the whole point of businesses to make money by servicing customers). But the Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions page includes neither a physical address nor even a general indication of where in the world the supposed hunts take place (somewhere in Texas, presumably), key pieces of information which any prospective customer would want to know. And none of our e-mails or phone calls to Texas Horse Hunt Expeditions expressing interest in participating in one of their "adventures" was returned. Last updated: 29 May 2013

False

Origins: In May 2013, social media were abuzz with chatter regarding (and at least one petition calling for the shutdown of) a three-month-old blog site for an outfit advertising Texas Horse Hunts, presented as an opportunity for big game horse hunters to bag themselves some equines: The photographs on the Texas Horse Hunts blog site were all lifted from other web sites. The picture of the dead equine in the back of a truck was taken from a May 2009 blog entry for Rogues Gallery Kennel (a rescue kennel for sled dogs) about the picking up of a naturally deceased horse in Alaska; the photo of a pair of horses lying dead on the ground was taken from a 2010 news article about San Joaquin County Sheriffs Office investigating five dead horses believed to have died of thirst in a field off Interstate 580 in California; and the picture of a single (apparently undead) brown horse lying on the ground is a stock photo from 2004.Joseph Robertia, the rightful owner of the first photograph penned an article for The Redoubt Reporter describing the harm the theft of his photo had caused for him and his family, saying (in part): The promotional material in the Texas Horse Hunts blog states that "All horse meats will be processed at our facilities," but laws forced the shutdown of the last remaining horse slaughterhouses in the U.S. (including two in Texas) back in 2007, and no such facilities are currently legally operating in the U.S. The blog site contains obvious jokes such as "You will have the option of killing your horse traditionally (with a stick)," and a "Brief History of Horse Hunting" article describing Henry VIII as a horse hunting enthusiast who "instituted a policy of horse hunting exclusively by club" and referencing a "Back to the Future lead actor who's a vocal supporter of the sport."

FMD_train_430

Although California has the sixth largest economy in the world, we also have one of the highest poverty rates in the nation.

06/22/2017

Before announcing his bid for California governor in November 2016,Antonio Villaraigosasaid he went up and down this state on a listening tour. The former mayor of Los Angeles said he witnessed markers of the states economic vitality and also its extreme poverty. What I saw was two Californias, Villaraigosa said at theforum, hosted on June 6, 2017 in San Francisco by the Public Policy Institute of California. Villaraigosa then made a statement that included two bold claims PolitiFact California has examined individually in the past. What people dont realize about California is that although we have the sixth largest economy in world, we have one of the highest poverty rates in the nation, Villaraigosa said at the event. Villaraigosa makes his claim at about the 6:45 minute mark in this video by the Public Policy Institute of California. Well revisit our analysis on those claims below. First, heres some background on Villaraigosa and the 2018 California governors race. Governors race Villaraigosa is amongseveral prominent Democratscompeting in 2018 to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. Others already announced include California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Republican candidates include State AssemblymanTravis Allenof Orange County; John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and Rosie Grier, a Hall of Fame professional football player. Apollreleased in June 2017 showed a tightening race. Newsom was in the lead among all candidates, with 22 percent support from likely voters. Villaraigosa had 17 percent support, up from his 11 percent three months earlier. As part of ourTracking The Truthseries, PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in the 2018 governors race. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. Weve already checked one of Villaraigosas statements at the June 6, 2017 forum. He made theFalse claimthat California is currently home to one-quarter of the nations 300 poorest cities. He mischaracterized the results of astudy, which relied on data from 2013, when many of the states cities had not yet recovered from the Great Recession. Today, many of those same cities have experienced strong economic improvement. Sixth largest economy in the world? Turning to Villaraigosas bold claim involving the economy and poverty, well start by checking the first part: that California has the sixth largest economy in the world. This is a talking point California leaders love to make on national and international stages. We fact-checked this hypothetical comparison of the states economy against that of nations in July 2016 when State Senate LeaderKevin de Lenmade the same assertion at the Democratic National Convention. We rated itMostly Truebased on Californias 2.4 trillion GDP in 2015, which ranked sixth behind the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom and slightly above France and Brazil. The rankings came from the Brown Administration, which analyzed figures from the International Monetary Funds World Economic Outlook Database. The claim missed a completely True rating because it ignored Californias sky high cost of living and Silicon Valleys outsized role in the states economic growth, which speaks to Villaraigosas description of unequal economies across the state. In a separate set of rankings, the California Legislative Analysts Office, adjusting for the states high cost of living, reported in 2016 that the states GDP ranking dropped to 11th in the world. That placed it just below France and just above Mexico. The Brown Administration, not including cost of living, recently updated theGDP rankings for 2016. Californias now $2.60 trillion GDP remained in the sixth spot, though it was just a tick behind the United Kingdoms $2.62 trillion economy. Villaraigosas statement is accurate, but needs the same clarification about the states high cost of living. One of the highest poverty rates? The second part of Villaraigosas claim is that California has one of the highest poverty rates. We interpreted this to mean compared with other states in the nation. We know the state has struggled mightily with poverty. As an example, we ratedTruea claim by Republican Assembly Leader Chad Mayes in January that California has the highest poverty rate in the nation when comparing states and considering cost-of-living. At 20.6 percent, Californias poverty rate in 2015 was well above the national average of 15.1 percent, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report that factors in cost-of-living. Floridas 19 percent poverty rate ranked second. Unlike Mayes statement on poverty, however, Villaraigosas claim makes no mention of cost-of-living. Ignoring this factor, California would have the 17th highest poverty rate, not the first, according to the census bureau. Villaraigosas statement needs this key clarification. Our ruling Antonio Villaraigosa recently claimed California has the sixth largest economy in the world and one of the highest poverty rates in the nation. The facts show Villaraigosa was correct on both points. He omitted, however, the key point that Californias high cost-of-living drags down its economic output and accelerates its poverty. The candidate for governors statements would benefit from this additional information. We rate Villaraigosas claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

True

Before announcing his bid for California governor in November 2016,Antonio Villaraigosasaid he went up and down this state on a listening tour.What I saw was two Californias, Villaraigosa said at theforum, hosted on June 6, 2017 in San Francisco by the Public Policy Institute of California.Villaraigosa is amongseveral prominent Democratscompeting in 2018 to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. Others already announced include California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor.Republican candidates include State AssemblymanTravis Allenof Orange County; John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and Rosie Grier, a Hall of Fame professional football player.Apollreleased in June 2017 showed a tightening race. Newsom was in the lead among all candidates, with 22 percent support from likely voters. Villaraigosa had 17 percent support, up from his 11 percent three months earlier.As part of ourTracking The Truthseries, PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in the 2018 governors race.Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook.Weve already checked one of Villaraigosas statements at the June 6, 2017 forum. He made theFalse claimthat California is currently home to one-quarter of the nations 300 poorest cities. He mischaracterized the results of astudy, which relied on data from 2013, when many of the states cities had not yet recovered from the Great Recession. Today, many of those same cities have experienced strong economic improvement.We fact-checked this hypothetical comparison of the states economy against that of nations in July 2016 when State Senate LeaderKevin de Lenmade the same assertion at the Democratic National Convention.We rated itMostly Truebased on Californias 2.4 trillion GDP in 2015, which ranked sixth behind the United States, China, Japan, Germany and the United Kingdom and slightly above France and Brazil. The rankings came from the Brown Administration, which analyzed figures from the International Monetary Funds World Economic Outlook Database.The Brown Administration, not including cost of living, recently updated theGDP rankings for 2016. Californias now $2.60 trillion GDP remained in the sixth spot, though it was just a tick behind the United Kingdoms $2.62 trillion economy.We know the state has struggled mightily with poverty. As an example, we ratedTruea claim by Republican Assembly Leader Chad Mayes in January that California has the highest poverty rate in the nation when comparing states and considering cost-of-living.

FMD_train_1155

Police Interview Room Suicide

01/03/2005

Claim: Video shows a suspect in a police shooting committing suicide in an interview room. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2004] Is this video real? GRAPHIC IMAGE WARNING: Video shows a suicide by gunshot. Origins: Movies and television have planted sensationalized images of certain phenomena into the public consciousness, to the extent that when most of us see the real thing, we're disappointed that it seems so mundane. In films and television programs, automobile crashes are always slam-bang affairs that inevitably end with one or more cars bursting into flames and exploding; thunder is always a very loud, sharp, and short report that occurs simultaneously with a bolt of lightning (rather than a slow, distant, gradually increasing rumbling that arrives well after the lightning flash); and gunshots are usually depicted as producing ear-splitting volumes of sound and, when aimed at another human being, resulting in plenty of gore and splatter. It's no wonder, then, that when the above-displayed video of a detainee shooting himself while in police custody began to circulate, many viewers were skeptical of its authenticity. By Hollywood standards, it's so tame as to be almost surreal. As depicted in the video, an uncuffed suspect enters an interrogation room and sits down in a chair, followed by an officer who dumps some keys and sunglasses on a table, checks his cell phone, and leaves the room momentarily. The officer returns several seconds later with a bottle of water and a cup of coffee, then hands the water bottle to the suspect, checks his cell phone again, picks up the coffee, and exits the room a second time, leaving the suspect alone and unrestrained, with the door open. The suspect takes a couple of swigs of water, then calmly reaches into his pants with his other hand, pulls out a large-caliber handgun, and shoots himself in the left temple. But what we see in the video is nothing like what most of us might expect. The soon-to-be suicide victim is neither visibly nervous nor distraught as he freely pulls out a gun and places it against his head. (He even replaces the cap on the water bottle before pulling the trigger.) The weapon does not produce an ear-shattering concussive sound in the small room; blood and brain matter don't splatter all over the walls, and the victim's body isn't hurtled out of the chair and onto the floor. The gun makes a sharp popping sound as the suspect shoots himself, blood streams from the victim's head and mouth, his hands drop the gun and water bottle to the floor, and his body slumps slightly in the chair. Even more unusual to many viewers is the officer's reaction to this event. He doesn't respond with any of the emotions most of us might feel, such as fear, panic, terror, or disgust. Nor does he rush to the victim's aid, check him for signs of life, summon help, or otherwise raise an alarm. "Oh, fuck," he exclaims as he re-enters the room, puts his coffee down on the table, and surveys the scene for a second or two, then adds, "Holy fuck." When a second (unseen) officer inquires, "What did he do?" he responds with, "Nobody shook him" (i.e., nobody searched the suspect for weapons), then calmly retrieves the keys and sunglasses and leaves the room. Throughout the short video, the officer's actions seem almost nonchalant: he doesn't act the least bit shocked or horrified that a human being has just died a violent death right in front of him. Instead, the foremost thought on his mind seems to be concern that someone's going to get into big trouble for the oversight of allowing a detainee to retain a weapon. (We realize, of course, that all of this would be viewed quite differently from a police perspective. Officers undergo thorough instruction in the handling and use of firearms, they generally see far more blood and violence on the job than most of us will experience in our lifetimes, and they're trained to respond to emergency situations by following proper procedure rather than reacting with fear or panic. We're simply presenting the average person's reaction to this video, as reflected in the e-mail we've received from readers who have viewed it.) The circumstances behind this video took place on 19 December 2003, when 47-year-old Ricardo Alfonso Cerna was stopped for a traffic violation at about 9:30 A.M. in Muscoy (a residential suburb of San Bernardino County, about 60 miles east of Los Angeles). Cerna fled the scene (in his car and then on foot) before shooting the pursuing officer, sheriff's deputy Michael Parham, twice in the abdomen. (Deputy Parham survived the shooting.) Cerna was soon arrested by San Bernardino police and taken to sheriff's headquarters on Third Street, where he was placed in an interview room just before 11 A.M. in preparation for questioning by Bobby Dean, head of the San Bernardino County sheriff's homicide unit. When Dean stepped out of the room briefly to speak with a detective in the hallway, Cerna pulled the .45-caliber handgun out of his pants and shot himself in the head. Evidently, a chain of mistakes led to Cerna, a shooting suspect, being taken into custody without either the arresting officers or the booking officers discovering he had a large, heavy handgun concealed on his person: [Sheriff Gary] Penrod said deputies failed to adequately search Cerna before he was put in a car, and again when he was transferred to the homicide division office. Each receiving deputy may have wrongly assumed the previous officer adequately searched the man, he said. Penrod said confusion among the three agencies involved—the Highway Patrol, San Bernardino police, and the Sheriff's Department—may have contributed to the oversight. "Obviously there was a mistake made," Penrod said by phone. "It was hectic, and it was a guy who was cuffed by somebody other than the transporting officer." (This apparently egregious oversight led to conspiracy-theory speculation in some quarters that Cerna had been "executed" by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, or that the sheriff returned the gun to Cerna and urged him to commit suicide with it—the completely implausible scenario of officers deliberately handing a loaded gun to a suspect who had already shot one policeman notwithstanding.) As to how the video of Cerna's suicide made it onto the Internet, sheriff's spokesman Chip Patterson said: [A] ranking official at the department was authorized to show the video during a presentation on officer safety at the FBI's training academy in Quantico, Va., several months ago. Following the presentation, dozens of copies of the video were made at the request of law-enforcement agencies across the country. Officials of those agencies wanted the copies for training purposes. Sheriff's officials do not know who might have leaked the video to the public. Some of the officers involved in Cerna's arrest and handling were subjected to disciplinary action, but sheriff's officials wouldn't comment on the specifics of that action or identify the officers involved. Last updated: 19 January 2014 Nelson, Joe. "Sheriff's Detainee's Suicide Put on Web." San Bernardino County Sun. 21 December 2004. Associated Press. "Arrestee Pulls Hidden Gun, Kills Self." CNN.com. 20 December 2003.

True

(This apparently egregious oversight led to conspiracy-theory speculation in some quarters that Cerna had been "executed" by the San Bernardino Sheriff's Department, or that the sheriff returned the gun to Cerna and urged him to commit suicide with it the completely implausible scenario of officers' deliberately handing a loaded gun to a suspect who had already shot one policeman notwithstanding.)

FMD_train_202

Famous Baby Giraffe Passes Away Only a Month After Birth?

05/24/2017

In May 2017 a widely-shared Facebook post spread the claim that Tajiri, the calf born to internet star April the Giraffe at the Animal Adventure Park in New York, had passed away only a month after his birth: claim Earlyview.net is one of many "prank" web sites. These sites allow you to create your own fake news story with a few clicks. Users choose a picture, write a headline and description, and then the web site formats the information so that it resembles a genuine news item, which you can then share on Facebook: April the giraffe became an internet sensation in 2017 thanks to a web cam installed at the Animal Adventure Park. The birth of Tajiri on 15 April 2017 was viewed by more than 1.2 million people on YouTube: YouTube We have our name! Tajiri the baby Giraffe. Tajiri is Swahili for HOPE. We will call him "Taj" pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp April The Giraffe (@AprilTheGiraffe) May 1, 2017 May 1, 2017 April and Tajiri still bring in big crowd (both online and in person) and the zoo regularly posts pictures of them on their social media pages. Furthermore, a local Fox affiliate visited the giraffes on 23 May 2017, long after this death hoax first circulated on social media: Fox

False

In May 2017 a widely-shared Facebook post spread the claim that Tajiri, the calf born to internet star April the Giraffe at the Animal Adventure Park in New York, had passed away only a month after his birth:April the giraffe became an internet sensation in 2017 thanks to a web cam installed at the Animal Adventure Park. The birth of Tajiri on 15 April 2017 was viewed by more than 1.2 million people on YouTube:We have our name! Tajiri the baby Giraffe. Tajiri is Swahili for HOPE. We will call him "Taj" pic.twitter.com/J64Bk7QOEp April The Giraffe (@AprilTheGiraffe) May 1, 2017April and Tajiri still bring in big crowd (both online and in person) and the zoo regularly posts pictures of them on their social media pages. Furthermore, a local Fox affiliate visited the giraffes on 23 May 2017, long after this death hoax first circulated on social media:

FMD_train_596

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

08/01/2007

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

True

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

FMD_train_1128

Are African nations implementing a massive tree barrier to halt the advance of the Sahara Desert?

11/29/2021

An ambitious effort by a group of African countries to tackle the effects of climate change and desertification has been in the works since 2007. The Great Green Wall (GGW) initiative plans to have trees extend like a belt across the Sahel region, which is at the base of the Sahara, in order to prevent the expansion of the desert due to climate change. According to a meme shared with us by our readers, more than 20 African countries are part of this effort, and the wall of trees, the meme says, will spread 7,000 km across the continent from coast to coast. This meme is largely true, though the length of the GGW varies, as the project itself is far from being completed. According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the project aims to restore Africa's degraded landscapes and transform millions of lives in one of the world's poorest regions, the Sahel. Once complete, the Wall will be the largest living structure on the planet—an 8,000 km natural wonder of the world stretching across the entire width of the continent. The project aims to have the "wall" extend from Senegal in the west to Djibouti in the east by 2030. The official website for the GGW details the reason for all their efforts: the catalyst for the Great Green Wall is the daily impact of desertification and climate change that is undermining the futures of millions of communities across Africa's Sahel region. Since the 1970s, the Sahel has been heavily affected by recurrent periods of drought. These droughts have threatened the livelihoods and futures of entire populations across the region. The lack of rain has led to the disappearance of livestock and the destruction of cereal crops. The great famines that rocked the Sub-Saharan region in the 80s each affected millions of people. In addition, the high population growth rate is increasing demand for food and pressure to gain access to other natural resources, which are the basis for livelihoods and the survival of the rural population. Millions of people—particularly rural youth—are currently facing an uncertain future due to the lack of decent rural jobs and the continuous loss of livelihoods caused by land degradation and falling yields. But according to The Associated Press, since the project's inception in 2007, millions of the planted trees have died due to diminishing rains and rising temperatures. Only 4% of the project's original goal has been met, and around $43 billion is needed to complete it. Given the challenges facing them, the focus of the project has also shifted from planting just a wall of trees to a mosaic of smaller and more durable projects that emphasize community-focused solutions that support agriculture and prevent desertification. The GGW Accelerator, announced in January 2021, detailed these changes: the Great Green Wall Initiative has evolved from its initial focus on tree planting towards a comprehensive rural development initiative aiming to transform the lives of Sahelian populations by creating a mosaic of green and productive landscapes across 11 countries (Senegal, Mauritania, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, Nigeria, Chad, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti). Progress has been achieved into the second decade of the initiative, with almost 18 million hectares of degraded lands restored and 350,000 jobs created across the Sahel and the Great Green Wall countries. The Accelerator also highlighted additional challenges they encountered in the process of creating the GGW, which included insufficient coordination, exchange, and flow of information at the regional and national levels, weak organizational structures, and a lack of consideration in national environmental priorities. Some of the changes include planting orchards and circular gardens where large trees strategically protect smaller ones. A number of these have been thriving in Senegal's portion of the GGW. According to the GGW's official website, there have been a number of successes. Senegal planted around 12 million drought-resistant trees in less than a decade, while 5 million hectares of degraded land were restored in Nigeria, and 15 million hectares in Ethiopia. A November 2021 report in the Nature Sustainability journal assessed the economic impact of the program and concluded that it was economically worthwhile: the Great Green Wall program is a colossal initiative to restore 100 million hectares of degraded ecosystems across 11 countries in the region. We evaluated the economic costs and benefits of future land restoration projects under this program. We applied different scenarios that account for both market-priced and non-market benefits from restored ecosystems and consider the heterogeneity of local decision-making contexts in terms of investment planning horizons, discount rates, and the time needed for the restored ecosystems to start yielding their benefits in full. The results show that every US dollar invested in land restoration yields, on average, US$1.2 under the base scenario, ranging from US$1.1 to US$4.4 across the scenarios. At most, ten years are needed for land restoration activities to break even from the social perspective, accounting for both market-priced and non-market ecosystem benefits. To fund all proposed land restoration activities, an investment of US$44 billion is needed under the base scenario (US$187 billion across scenarios). The report added that violent conflicts in the Sahel are estimated to reduce accessibility to these degraded ecosystems from 27.9 million hectares to 14.1 million hectares. While originally only 11 countries were part of the effort, today there are more than 20 African nations involved. You can learn more about the impact and current projects here, and in this video. Given that the focus of the GGW has evolved beyond just planting trees and it is still an effort in progress, we rate this claim as true.

True

An ambitious effort by a group of African countries to tackle the effects of climate change and desertification has been in the works since 2007. The Great Green Wall (GGW) initiative plans to have trees extend like a belt across the Sahel region which is at the base of the Sahara, in order to prevent the expansion of the desert through climate change.This meme is largely true, though the length of the GGW varies, as the project itself is far from being completed. According to the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification (UNCCD), the project aims to restore Africas degraded landscapes and transform millions of lives in one of the worlds poorest regions, the Sahel. Once complete, the Wall will be the largest living structure on the planet an 8,000 km natural wonder of the world stretching across the entire width of the continent.The project aims to have the "wall" extend from Senegal in the west to Djibouti in the east, by 2030. The official website for the GGW details the reason for all their efforts:But according to The Associated Press, since the projects inception in 2007, millions of the planted trees have died due to diminishing rains and rising temperatures. Only 4% of the projects original goal has been met and around $43 billion dollars is needed to complete it. Given the challenges facing them, the focus of the project has also shifted from planting just a wall of trees to a mosaic of smaller and more durable projects that emphasize community-focused solutions that support agriculture and prevent desertification.The GGW Accelerator, announced in January 2021, detailed these changes:The Accelerator also highlighted additional challenges they encountered in the process of creating the GGW which included insufficient coordination, exchange and flow of information at the regional and national level, weak organizational structures, and a lack of consideration in national environmental priorities.Some of the changes include planting orchards and circular gardens where large trees strategically protect smaller ones. A number of these have been thriving in Senegals portion of the GGW. According to GGWs official website, there have been a number of successes. Senegal planted around 12 million drought resistant trees in less than a decade, while 5 million hectares of degraded land was restored in Nigeria, and 15 million hectares in Ethiopia. A November 2021 report in the Nature Sustainability journal assessed the economic impact of the program and concluded that it was economically worthwhile:While originally only 11 countries were a part of the effort, today there are more than 20 African nations involved. You can learn more about the impact and current projects here, and in this video:

FMD_train_888

Obama unilaterally announced he was delaying employer mandate through a blog post by a mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Treasury.

01/16/2014

U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz sees a consistent pattern of lawlessness from this president and this administration-- unilaterally altering laws and choosing which to enforce, Cruz said in Austin on Jan. 10, 2014. One example, the Texas Republican said, came last summer, when President Barack Obama delayed by a year the Obamacare laws requirement that companies with 50 or more employees provide coverage to their workers. The presidents a big fan of saying, Its the law of the land. We need to follow the law of the land. Oh, really? Lets see, that law of the land says on Jan. 1, 2014, the employer mandate shall kick in for big business, Cruz said at a Texas Public Policy Foundation conference. And yet the president just announced unilaterally, No, were not enforcing this. Im granting an exemption to all of big business. And by the way, this was done -- was this done through a big formal announcement, through an address to the American people: Theres a problem in this law; were going to have to change it? No. It was done through a blog post by a mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Treasury on July 3, right before the Fourth of July break. Were not getting into whether laws were broken; not our purview. But we wondered if Cruz accurately captured how the change was revealed. Cruz spokesman Sean Rushton told us by email that Cruz was referring to a July 2, 2013,blog entryon Treasury.gov attributed to Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy. The post said, The administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin. News coverage that day said the Treasury and White House websites broke the news.The New York Timesreported: In a significant setback for President Barack Obama's signature domestic initiative, the administration on Tuesday abruptly announced a one-year delay, until 2015, in his health care law's mandate that larger employers provide coverage for their workers or pay penalties. The decision postpones the effective date beyond next year's midterm elections. Employer groups welcomed the news of the concession, which followed complaints from businesses and was posted late in the day on the White House and Treasury websites while the president was flying home from Africa. TheWashington Posts Wonkblogsaid: The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday. We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively, Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, wrote in a late Tuesdayblog post. In a July 3, 2013,news story, Bloomberg News described the White House website announcement: Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama adviser, said in a blog post announcing the move that the administration decided on the delay so officials could simplify reporting requirements and give employers a chance to adjust their health-care coverage. Some months later, it looks to us like the Treasury announced the change shortly before the White House did. Jarrettspostis time-stamped 6 p.m. Eastern; the Treasury blog entry does not have a time stamp. But the earliest news accounts we saw solely cited the Treasury post: the Washington Post news blog entry, stamped 5:51 p.m., a Business Insidernews storystamped 5:41 p.m., and a Huffington Postitemstamped 5:50 p.m. Eastern. With the announcements, the government put in motion one-year delays for businesses to report certain information to the IRS and related penalties. The Obamacare law, approved in 2010, essentially requires affected employers and other health coverage providers to report whether their insurance plans meet the laws minimum coverage standards and whether employees are enrolled in them. There were more notification steps: A July 9, 2013, IRSnoticeformalized the change, and Treasury and the IRSpublishedproposed versions of the rules for comment Sept. 9, 2013, in the Federal Register. When we called in January 2014, IRS spokesman Eric Smith told us by phone that the final rules had not yet been issued. Debate has swirled over whether the administration had the authority to unilaterally make this change. Rushton emailed us a link to a July 8, 2013,blog postby the libertarian Cato Institute saying the Affordable Care Act gives Treasury the authority to collect penalties, not to waive them or the reporting requirements. In contrast, a Treasury officialtolda House subcommittee on July 17, 2013, that the departmentgenerally may delay effective dates in some circumstances -- such as easing the transition to new requirements -- because of a lawstatingthe IRS can prescribe all needful rules and regulations to enforce relevant laws. So: The news was announced on two government blogs. And was the originator a mid-level bureaucrat? John Palguta, vice president for policy at the Partnership for Public Service, a nonpartisan group that studies the federal workforce, told us by email, The assistant secretary for tax policy is far from a mid-level Department of Treasury employee. Of the approximately 2.1 million civilian employees in the executive branch of government (not counting the Postal Service), Mr. Mazur is one of only 1,217 Senate-confirmed, political employees in government paid at executive-level IV, which in 2013 was $155,500 a year. On the other hand, a University of North Carolina constitutional law professor who wrote abookon federal appointments told us by email, He could be described as mid-level but, because he is Senate-confirmed, not a bureaucrat. Under the Constitution, officials requiring Senate confirmation are thought of as officers of the U.S. a term, Michael Gerhardt said, that has been defined by the Supreme Court as someone who wields some substantial policymaking authority. A bureaucrat sounds as if it is someone who does not have much authority or discretion, he said. Gerhardt said mid-level typically means ranking somewhere within the middle of the hierarchy of the department. It is not unusual for Senate-confirmable officials to be in such posts. Our ruling Cruz said that Obama unilaterally announced he was delaying the employer mandate through a blog post by a mid-level bureaucrat at the Department of Treasury. The announcement was also made on a White House blog, and mid-level bureaucrat isnt necessarily accurate. We rate his statement as 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. Correction, 4:10 p.m. Jan. 21, 2014:We revised this story, which originally overstated the salary of executive-level IV government employees. This correction did not affect our rating of the claim.

True

Cruz spokesman Sean Rushton told us by email that Cruz was referring to a July 2, 2013,blog entryon Treasury.gov attributed to Mark Mazur, assistant secretary for tax policy. The post said, The administration is announcing that it will provide an additional year before the ACA mandatory employer and insurer reporting requirements begin.News coverage that day said the Treasury and White House websites broke the news.The New York Timesreported:TheWashington Posts Wonkblogsaid:The Obama administration will not penalize businesses that do not provide health insurance in 2014, the Treasury Department announced Tuesday. We have heard concerns about the complexity of the requirements and the need for more time to implement them effectively, Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, wrote in a late Tuesdayblog post.In a July 3, 2013,news story, Bloomberg News described the White House website announcement:Valerie Jarrett, a senior Obama adviser, said in a blog post announcing the move that the administration decided on the delay so officials could simplify reporting requirements and give employers a chance to adjust their health-care coverage.Some months later, it looks to us like the Treasury announced the change shortly before the White House did. Jarrettspostis time-stamped 6 p.m. Eastern; the Treasury blog entry does not have a time stamp. But the earliest news accounts we saw solely cited the Treasury post: the Washington Post news blog entry, stamped 5:51 p.m., a Business Insidernews storystamped 5:41 p.m., and a Huffington Postitemstamped 5:50 p.m. Eastern.There were more notification steps: A July 9, 2013, IRSnoticeformalized the change, and Treasury and the IRSpublishedproposed versions of the rules for comment Sept. 9, 2013, in the Federal Register. When we called in January 2014, IRS spokesman Eric Smith told us by phone that the final rules had not yet been issued.Debate has swirled over whether the administration had the authority to unilaterally make this change. Rushton emailed us a link to a July 8, 2013,blog postby the libertarian Cato Institute saying the Affordable Care Act gives Treasury the authority to collect penalties, not to waive them or the reporting requirements. In contrast, a Treasury officialtolda House subcommittee on July 17, 2013, that the departmentgenerally may delay effective dates in some circumstances -- such as easing the transition to new requirements -- because of a lawstatingthe IRS can prescribe all needful rules and regulations to enforce relevant laws.On the other hand, a University of North Carolina constitutional law professor who wrote abookon federal appointments told us by email, He could be described as mid-level but, because he is Senate-confirmed, not a bureaucrat.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_1279

Data that has been altered or distorted.

07/22/2015

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

False

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

FMD_train_934

Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee (Medicaid) cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average.

03/29/2015

In an effort to bring Rhode Island's budget under control, Gov. Gina Raimondo is hoping to rein in the cost of Medicaid. She has proposed cutting $88 million from the states $2.7-billion Medicaid spending in the next fiscal year and has created a task force to reinvent the program. During theMarch 13, 2015 tapingof WPRI-TV's Newsmakers program, Raimondo argued that the costs of the joint state and federal program that provides health insurance to the very poor are extraordinarily high in the state. You have to remember, she said, Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee [Medicaid] cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average. So we have to do a better job. It's just not sustainable. She madea similar statementon Rhode Island Public Radio. Paying, on average, 60 percent more for anything seems pretty scandalous. We decided to see if the typical cost of a Rhode Island Medicaid recipient was really that much higher than average, and whether per-patient costs were actually lower in 48 other states. The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation is a reliable source of data on health issues. We got a state-by-state tally oftotal state and federal Medicaid spendingfor the 2013 fiscal year and divided it by the number ofpeople in each state on Medicaid in December 2013in hopes of getting a rough estimate. By that back-of-the-envelope method, Rhode Island ranked fifth, not second, with all the New England states except New Hampshire in the top 10. The cost was 39 percent above the national average. But that's using 12 months of expenses and one-month enrollment totals.Laura Snyder, a senior policy analyst with Kaiser, said that's an apples-to-oranges mix. When we asked Raimondo's office for the source of her numbers, her spokeswoman cited Kaiser as well, specifically a page that directly ranksMedicaid spending per enrollee by state, although it doesn't list actual total spending or enrollment. And it's from the 2011 fiscal year. Nonetheless, on that list, Rhode Island, at $9,247 per enrollee, does indeed rank second. Only Alaska, at $9,474, spent more. In addition, per enrollee spending in Rhode Island was 60 percent higher than the $5,790 U.S. average. So, by that ranking, Raimondo is correct on both counts. We asked why newer numbers aren't available. Snyder said annual enrollment statistics by state are slow to come out from the federal government, so the 2011 data are the most recent available. Because we wondered if state rankings fluctuate significantly from year to year -- and might be significantly different in 2012, 2013 and 2014 -- we asked Kaiser to see its rankings from some previous years. They gave us data going back to 2000. It turns out that our standing has bounced around a bit, but not a lot. For example, Rhode Island ranked fifth in 2010 and 2009, but ranked first in 2007. Our ruling Raimondo said, Rhode Island has the second highest per enrollee [Medicaid] cost of any state in the country, which is 60 percent higher than the national average. But in making her statement on one of the central elements in her proposed budget, Raimondo didnt note that the numbers were from the 2011 year. Granted, those are the most recent statistics available, according to Kaiser. But a lot can happen in four years. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True. (If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

True

During theMarch 13, 2015 tapingof WPRI-TV's Newsmakers program, Raimondo argued that the costs of the joint state and federal program that provides health insurance to the very poor are extraordinarily high in the state.She madea similar statementon Rhode Island Public Radio.The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation is a reliable source of data on health issues. We got a state-by-state tally oftotal state and federal Medicaid spendingfor the 2013 fiscal year and divided it by the number ofpeople in each state on Medicaid in December 2013in hopes of getting a rough estimate.By that back-of-the-envelope method, Rhode Island ranked fifth, not second, with all the New England states except New Hampshire in the top 10. The cost was 39 percent above the national average. But that's using 12 months of expenses and one-month enrollment totals.Laura Snyder, a senior policy analyst with Kaiser, said that's an apples-to-oranges mix.When we asked Raimondo's office for the source of her numbers, her spokeswoman cited Kaiser as well, specifically a page that directly ranksMedicaid spending per enrollee by state, although it doesn't list actual total spending or enrollment. And it's from the 2011 fiscal year.Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True.(If you have a claim youd likePolitiFact Rhode Islandto check, email us at[email protected]. And follow us on Twitter: @politifactri.)

FMD_train_1834

In the last seven years of my tenure, Texas created 1.5 million new jobs. As a matter of fact, without Texas, America would have lost 400,000 jobs.

06/08/2015

Addressing supporters in an airport hangar in Addison, Perry said that on his watch, companies in Texas created almost one third of all new American jobs. And, he said, in the last seven years of my tenure, Texas created 1.5 million new jobs. As a matter of fact, without Texas, America would have lost 400,000 jobs. Sounded familiar. In May 2013,we found Truea Perry claim about Texas accounting for 33 percent of the countrys net new jobs over the last 10 years. That conclusion was supported by comparing state-by-state job gain estimates and a separate calculation of net job gains nationally, both by the federal government. Later, in January 2015, werated Mostly TruePerrys statement that starting in December 2007, 1.4 million jobs were created in Texas. In that same period, the rest of the country lost 400,000 jobs. His figures mostly held up according to household surveys by the federal government looking into civilian employment including self-employment, though at the time positions not yet recovered outside Texas totaled closer to 350,000, according to the latest available data when Perry spoke to lawmakers Jan. 22, 2015. When we looked at the earlier Texas-nation comparison by Perry, his spokesman encouraged us to consultMark J. Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan campus in Flint. Professor Perry wrote in a November 2014online commentarythat from December 2007, the start of the national recession, through October 2014, Texas saw civilian employment balloon by 1.36 million jobs. In contrast, he wrote, civilian employment in the other 49 states without Texas is still 0.26% and more than 350,000 jobs below the December 2007 level there were 134.9 million non-Texas jobs in October vs. 135.26 million in December 2007. To our query, the scholar emailed a chart showing that based on what the government calls total employment, covering all jobs including self-employed posts, Texas had 1,410,400 more jobs in November 2014 than it had in December 2007 while the rest of the country had 352,440 fewer jobs. Total employment, he said, serves as a comprehensive indicator and is used to calculate unemployment rates. A little more: The BLSsays the definition of employment in the federal household survey, which the governor relied on for his comparisons, comprises wage and salary workers (including domestics and other private household workers), self-employed persons and unpaid workers who worked 15 hours or more during the reference week in family-operated enterprises. Employment in both agricultural and nonagricultural industries is included. In contrast, the federal government's oft-quoted payroll survey of employers covers only wage and salary employees on the payrolls of nonfarm establishments. By this other metric, Cheryl Abbot, a regional economist for the bureau, told us, Texas netted 1.2 million additional jobs from December 2007 to December 2014. In the period, she said, 24 states had net decreases in total civilian employment. But again, those figures werent total employment, the indicator chosen by Perry. After Perry declared for president, we circled back to Abbot, who emailed us data indicating that from December 2007 to December 2014, Texas saw an increase in total employment of 1,572,694; the nation as a whole had a surge of 1,169,000. Put another way, but for Texas, the nation would have experienced a total employment decrease of 403,694. When we looked into Perrys seven-year contrast before, analystDavid Cooperof the liberal Economic Policy Institute commented that the timeframe singled out by Perry may deliver a more glowing contrast for Texas than other periods. According to the governments payroll surveys, he said, the country had added 9.1 million jobs since June 2009, the acknowledged end of the national recession, with Texas accounting for 1.5 million of the additions. Significantly, he said, the rest of the country as a whole lost jobs from June 2009 until February 2010. Since then, he said, the U.S. had added more than 10 million jobs with Texas (again) accounting for more than 1 million of them. At the time, Professor Perry said that in his view, the best comparison of Texas to the rest of the nation starts in December 2007. His point: Texas never experienced significant job losses during the Great Recession, while the rest of the country did, he emailed. Therefore, comparing job gains since June 2009 or Feb. 2010 really wont make much sense. Of course the non-Texas US gained a lot of jobs since June 2009, and more than Texas, but thats because Texas never lost any (very many) jobs in 2008 and 2009 like the rest of the country. Texas is a great economic success story, and an anomaly vs. the rest of the country regarding job losses/gains, he wrote. Also at the time, Abbot said by email Perrys claim could have been precise by referring to total civilian employment rather than jobs. That said, as of November 2014, Abbot said, 24 other states had yet to reach pre-recession employment levels. On a statewide basis, Texas by far leads all states, with total civilian employment growth of 1,410,440. California is a distant second with civilian (household) employment growth of 452,763, Abbot wrote. Our ruling Perry said: In the last seven years of my tenure, Texas created 1.5 million new jobs. As a matter of fact, without Texas, America would have lost 400,000 jobs. These figures hold up though Perry cherry-picked a time period arguably giving Texas more of a gloss than it might get with other periods. More generally, no governor determines job gains or losses in a state; outside factors tend to prevail. In Texas, the fracking boom comes to mind. Governors dont create oil and gas fields. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. CORRECTION, 12:40 p.m., June 18, 2015:This fact check was revised to correct our error in quoting an email from Cheryl Abbot of the BLS. This change, clarifying that 24 states had net decreases in civilian employment in the period singled out by Perry, did not affect our rating.

True

In May 2013,we found Truea Perry claim about Texas accounting for 33 percent of the countrys net new jobs over the last 10 years. That conclusion was supported by comparing state-by-state job gain estimates and a separate calculation of net job gains nationally, both by the federal government.Later, in January 2015, werated Mostly TruePerrys statement that starting in December 2007, 1.4 million jobs were created in Texas. In that same period, the rest of the country lost 400,000 jobs. His figures mostly held up according to household surveys by the federal government looking into civilian employment including self-employment, though at the time positions not yet recovered outside Texas totaled closer to 350,000, according to the latest available data when Perry spoke to lawmakers Jan. 22, 2015.When we looked at the earlier Texas-nation comparison by Perry, his spokesman encouraged us to consultMark J. Perry, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan campus in Flint.Professor Perry wrote in a November 2014online commentarythat from December 2007, the start of the national recession, through October 2014, Texas saw civilian employment balloon by 1.36 million jobs. In contrast, he wrote, civilian employment in the other 49 states without Texas is still 0.26% and more than 350,000 jobs below the December 2007 level there were 134.9 million non-Texas jobs in October vs. 135.26 million in December 2007.A little more: The BLSsays the definition of employment in the federal household survey, which the governor relied on for his comparisons, comprises wage and salary workers (including domestics and other private household workers), self-employed persons and unpaid workers who worked 15 hours or more during the reference week in family-operated enterprises. Employment in both agricultural and nonagricultural industries is included.When we looked into Perrys seven-year contrast before, analystDavid Cooperof the liberal Economic Policy Institute commented that the timeframe singled out by Perry may deliver a more glowing contrast for Texas than other periods. According to the governments payroll surveys, he said, the country had added 9.1 million jobs since June 2009, the acknowledged end of the national recession, with Texas accounting for 1.5 million of the additions. Significantly, he said, the rest of the country as a whole lost jobs from June 2009 until February 2010. Since then, he said, the U.S. had added more than 10 million jobs with Texas (again) accounting for more than 1 million of them.

FMD_train_130

Rand Paul wants to end all federal faith-based initiatives, and even end the deduction for religious charities.

10/19/2010

Anad unveiled Oct. 15, 2010, by Democrat Jack Conway so angered his opponent for a Kentucky Senate seat, Republican Rand Paul, that Paulrefused to shake handsafter a debate two days later.The primary reason for the bad blood was the charge in Conway's ad that Paul, as a college student at Baylor University, had participated in some unorthodox activities, according to an account inGQ.Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible 'a hoax' -- that was banned from mocking Christianity and Christ? said the ad's narrator. Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up? Tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his God was 'Aqua Buddha? 'The ad provoked outrage in the Paul camp, and even some liberal commentators protested.The New Republic'sJonathan Chait called itthe ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year for coming perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office, an idea that Chait called a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign.Because the most salacious details of theGQstory were provided by a woman who requested anonymity, we're not going to attempt to fact-check that part of the story. But the ad does contain two policy-focused claims. We'll turn our focus on those instead.After the reference to the Aqua Buddha story, the ad asks, Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities?We thought we'd take a look.The Paul campaign did not return a telephone inquiry, so we reviewed the sources cited in the ad.To back up the first claim -- that Paul wants to end all federal faith-based initiatives -- the ad citedthe June 20, 2008, edition of a public-affairs television showcalledKentuckyTonight. Paul was one of four guests invited to join an hour-long discussion of the Kentucky state budget.At one point -- it's about 70 percent of the way through the video -- the conversation turns to state budget cuts and the intersection of church-related charity work with state support for social services. Paul offers a note of caution.You mentioned faith-based intermingling -- government and faith-based, Paul said. George (W.) Bush did that, and I think it was a horrible mistake. One, I think the money sort of pollutes the mission of a purely Christian organization, or Muslim or whatever organization it is, and it obscures the church-state separation that there really ought to be. We shouldn't have tax money flowing into churches. We should let churches do charity work, and that's wonderful, but they shouldn't be corrupted with government money.This seems to be a pretty clear statement of Paul's views on the subject. The only potential complication we see with the ad's wording is that Paul's statement onKentuckyTonightwas focused on the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. It's possible to envision a partnership between the federal government and a religious group that doesn't involve money, but we think it's reasonable to assume that most would. So the ad's claim seems pretty accurate to us.On the second point -- that Paul would end the deduction for religious charities -- the ad cites an Associated Press account. The AP actually ran a half-dozen stories beginning on Oct. 12, 2010, that addressed Paul's support for a national sales tax. The tale gets a bit complicated, so bear with us.On Oct. 12, the AP quoted Paul saying, The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us. The story attributed the quote to a written statement distributed by an anti-tax group and verified by his campaign. TheFair Taxwould eliminatethe federal income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift taxes, replacing them with a 23 percent national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services. Eliminating the federal income tax would also eliminate deductions such as tax deductions for donations to religious charities. Bills proposing to make that change, which have come up annually for years in Congress, have all failed to progress to a full hearing. Nonetheless, Democrats have used the Fair Tax as the basis for many ads against Republicans this year, one of which we recently ratedHalf True.One day later, Paul began to walk back the comment. The AP reported that Paul, a limited-government advocate, said he supports a 'simpler tax code' but wouldn't offer specifics about his written comments to an anti-tax group supporting repeal of the 16th Amendment that created the federal income tax. 'I haven't really been saying anything like that,' Paul told reporters following a speech in Henderson as part of his Kentucky bus tour. 'I think it's probably better to go ... with what I'm saying on the campaign trail. 'On Oct. 14, theOwensboro Messenger-Inquirerinterviewed Paul before a rally. Paul told the paper that he is for tax reform in general but hasn't committed to the Fair Tax. I'd like to flatten the income tax, Paul said. The church doesn't ask for more than 10 percent of your income.On Oct. 15, Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, told the AP that a tax reform activist -- former Paul campaign manager David Adams -- had distributed the statement that was the basis for the original AP story, and in so doing, distorted Paul's views on the Fair Tax. Our campaign respects the Fair Taxation movement, but the Kentucky coordinator got a little overzealous promoting his cause and created a statement that does not accurately reflect Dr. Paul's views, Benton said in a statement to the AP. Rand knows our tax code is broken and will fight for fundamental reform that both simplifies the system and reduces the financial burden for all Kentuckians. Dr. Paul will study and consider all plans that attempt to do so.The Oct. 15 AP story noted that Adams had said he distributed the statement only after receiving permission from Benton and that Benton had personally verified the statement to the AP for its initial story.Finally, on Oct. 16, the AP reported the existence of a video from a campaign event in February in which Paul told Americans for Fair Taxation volunteer Terry Schmitt, I'm in favor of any change in the tax code that reduces the overall tax burden. That would include the Fair Tax, changing to a sales tax. One great advantage of it would be no more IRS, no more income tax, no more reams of paper that we all have to deal with.This series of explanations suggests that Paul is backtracking to avoid being associated with a policy proposal that could be unpopular among some voters. But even if he does seem ambivalent, we think there's enough evidence to justify the Conway camp's claim that Paul did support the Fair Tax, at least at one point. That said, we think the Conway ad is somewhat misleading in its description of Paul's views. We don't see evidence that Paul made the religious-charity exemption a target of his opposition. His opposition, such as it was, would have been part of his support for a broader, fundamental tax overhaul. So we think Conway's decision to focus on this narrow aspect of the Fair Tax is misleading.All told, then, Conway is close to accurate on both claims but with a slight exaggeration on the question of religious tax exemptions. Keeping in mind that we're not rating the Aqua Buddha portion of the ad, we rate the two policy statements Mostly True.

True

Anad unveiled Oct. 15, 2010, by Democrat Jack Conway so angered his opponent for a Kentucky Senate seat, Republican Rand Paul, that Paulrefused to shake handsafter a debate two days later.The primary reason for the bad blood was the charge in Conway's ad that Paul, as a college student at Baylor University, had participated in some unorthodox activities, according to an account inGQ.Why was Rand Paul a member of a secret society that called the Holy Bible 'a hoax' -- that was banned from mocking Christianity and Christ? said the ad's narrator. Why did Rand Paul once tie a woman up? Tell her to bow down before a false idol and say his God was 'Aqua Buddha?'The ad provoked outrage in the Paul camp, and even some liberal commentators protested.The New Republic'sJonathan Chait called itthe ugliest, most illiberal political ad of the year for coming perilously close to saying that non-belief in Christianity is a disqualification for public office, an idea that Chait called a pretty sickening premise for a Democratic campaign.Because the most salacious details of theGQstory were provided by a woman who requested anonymity, we're not going to attempt to fact-check that part of the story. But the ad does contain two policy-focused claims. We'll turn our focus on those instead.After the reference to the Aqua Buddha story, the ad asks, Why does Rand Paul now want to end all federal faith-based initiatives and even end the deduction for religious charities?We thought we'd take a look.The Paul campaign did not return a telephone inquiry, so we reviewed the sources cited in the ad.To back up the first claim -- that Paul wants to end all federal faith-based initiatives -- the ad citedthe June 20, 2008, edition of a public-affairs television showcalledKentuckyTonight. Paul was one of four guests invited to join an hour-long discussion of the Kentucky state budget.At one point -- it's about 70 percent of the way through the video -- the conversation turns to state budget cuts and the intersection of church-related charity work with state support for social services. Paul offers a note of caution.You mentioned faith-based intermingling -- government and faith-based, Paul said. George (W.) Bush did that, and I think it was a horrible mistake. One, I think the money sort of pollutes the mission of a purely Christian organization, or Muslim or whatever organization it is, and it obscures the church-state separation that there really ought to be. We shouldn't have tax money flowing into churches. We should let churches do charity work, and that's wonderful, but they shouldn't be corrupted with government money.This seems to be a pretty clear statement of Paul's views on the subject. The only potential complication we see with the ad's wording is that Paul's statement onKentuckyTonightwas focused on the expenditure of taxpayer dollars. It's possible to envision a partnership between the federal government and a religious group that doesn't involve money, but we think it's reasonable to assume that most would. So the ad's claim seems pretty accurate to us.On the second point -- that Paul would end the deduction for religious charities -- the ad cites an Associated Press account. The AP actually ran a half-dozen stories beginning on Oct. 12, 2010, that addressed Paul's support for a national sales tax. The tale gets a bit complicated, so bear with us.On Oct. 12, the AP quoted Paul saying, The federal tax code is a disaster no one would come up with if we were starting from scratch. I support making taxes flatter and simpler. I would vote for the Fair Tax to get rid of the 16th Amendment, the IRS and a lot of the control the federal government exerts over us. The story attributed the quote to a written statement distributed by an anti-tax group and verified by his campaign.TheFair Taxwould eliminatethe federal income tax, employment tax, and estate and gift taxes, replacing them with a 23 percent national sales tax on the use or consumption in the United States of taxable property or services. Eliminating the federal income tax would also eliminate deductions such as tax deductions for donations to religious charities. Bills proposing to make that change, which have come up annually for years in Congress, have all failed to progress to a full hearing. Nonetheless, Democrats have used the Fair Tax as the basis for many ads against Republicans this year, one of which we recently ratedHalf True.One day later, Paul began to walk back the comment. The AP reported that Paul, a limited-government advocate, said he supports a 'simpler tax code' but wouldn't offer specifics about his written comments to an anti-tax group supporting repeal of the 16th Amendment that created the federal income tax. 'I haven't really been saying anything like that,' Paul told reporters following a speech in Henderson as part of his Kentucky bus tour. 'I think it's probably better to go ... with what I'm saying on the campaign trail.'On Oct. 14, theOwensboro Messenger-Inquirerinterviewed Paul before a rally. Paul told the paper that he is for tax reform in general but hasn't committed to the Fair Tax. I'd like to flatten the income tax, Paul said. The church doesn't ask for more than 10 percent of your income.On Oct. 15, Paul's campaign manager, Jesse Benton, told the AP that a tax reform activist -- former Paul campaign manager David Adams -- had distributed the statement that was the basis for the original AP story, and in so doing, distorted Paul's views on the Fair Tax. Our campaign respects the Fair Taxation movement, but the Kentucky coordinator got a little overzealous promoting his cause and created a statement that does not accurately reflect Dr. Paul's views, Benton said in a statement to the AP. Rand knows our tax code is broken and will fight for fundamental reform that both simplifies the system and reduces the financial burden for all Kentuckians. Dr. Paul will study and consider all plans that attempt to do so.The Oct. 15 AP story noted that Adams had said he distributed the statement only after receiving permission from Benton and that Benton had personally verified the statement to the AP for its initial story.Finally, on Oct. 16, the AP reported the existence of a video from a campaign event in February in which Paul told Americans for Fair Taxation volunteer Terry Schmitt, I'm in favor of any change in the tax code that reduces the overall tax burden. That would include the Fair Tax, changing to a sales tax. One great advantage of it would be no more IRS, no more income tax, no more reams of paper that we all have to deal with.This series of explanations suggests that Paul is backtracking to avoid being associated with a policy proposal that could be unpopular among some voters. But even if he does seem ambivalent, we think there's enough evidence to justify the Conway camp's claim that Paul did support the Fair Tax, at least at one point.

FMD_train_397

FedEx Scam Claims 'Your Package Is Held in Our Warehouse' in Fake 'Delivery Notification' Email

12/13/2022

In December 2022, a FedEx email scam circulated, claiming to be a "package delivery notification" from the company, stating, "Your package is held in our warehouse." The scam was sent out at the same time that people around the world were ordering and receiving packages for gift-giving holidays. We previously examined similar scams involving UPS, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and other package delivery companies. In fact, one of our earlier stories about a FedEx package delivery email scam was published a decade ago. Scammers have been engaging in this activity for a long time. According to a copy of the FedEx email scam that we reviewed, the message originated from [email protected], which is not an official FedEx email address. The message read as follows: "Your package delivery Notification ID#0164278468-735 'Fedex' [email protected] via walisdom.biz Important Message for (name) Your package delivery Notification FedEx Order 29194773US Your package is held in our warehouse. You have (1) package waiting for you in our warehouse, ready for delivery. Use your order number to track and receive your package! TRACK YOUR PACKAGE Order number Order 29194773US Delivery Expected delivery: 1 - 2 days." The tracking number was real, but the package associated with it had already been delivered in April 2022. The scammers sent the email in the hope that people would click the link without verifying the tracking number. We investigated the link in the email and found that it was a phishing scam, meaning the scammers aimed to obtain personal information and financial data. The link in the scam email led to the URL storage.googleapis.com/pemotion/tixrin.html, followed by a long string of additional code likely intended for the scammers' own tracking purposes. Upon clicking the URL, we were directed to mooltay.com, which then redirected to ponnel.com, a website that displayed an "Express" logo without the word "Federal" in front of it. On the ponnel.com scam website, we were guided through a series of questions about the supposed package delivery issue. One step falsely claimed that there would be a $1.95 charge to release the nonexistent package from a customs distribution hub. At the end of the steps, the ponnel.com website redirected to webwinnalists.com, a page that requested personal information and a credit card number. We strongly advise against providing any of these websites with your data. On FedEx.com, the company warns its customers to be on the lookout for scams involving "unexpected requests for money in return for delivery of a package, often with a sense of urgency." That's precisely what this FedEx email scam for a "package delivery notification" entailed. By email, FedEx shared the following statement with us: "FedEx does not send unsolicited text messages or emails to customers requesting money or package or personal information. Unfortunately, scammers often invoke the names of trusted brands when attempting to take advantage of the public, and FedEx is one of many companies whose brand has been abused in this way. Any suspicious text messages or emails should be deleted without being opened and reported to [email protected]." For more tips on detecting online scams, visit the FedEx Customer Protection Center at https://www.fedex.com/us/security/prevent-fraud. This story will be updated if further details come to light. Source: "Recognize & Report Fraud." FedEx.com, https://www.fedex.com/en-us/trust-center/report-fraud.html. Dec. 14, 2022: This story was updated to add a statement from FedEx.

False

We previously looked at similar scams for UPS, the U.S. Postal Service (USPS), and other package delivery companies. In fact, one of our previous stories about a FedEx package delivery email scam was published a decade ago. Needless to say, scammers have been doing this for a long time.On FedEx.com, one of the scams the company advises that its customers be on the lookout for was, "Unexpected requests for money in return for delivery of a package, often with a sense of urgency." That's exactly what this FedEx email scam for a "package delivery notification" was all about.FedEx does not send unsolicited text messages or emails to customers requesting money or package or personal information. Unfortunately, scammers often invoke the names of trusted brands when attempting to take advantage of the public and FedEx is one of many companies whose brand has been abused in this way. Any suspicious text messages or emails should be deleted without being opened and reported [email protected]. For more tips on detecting online scams, visit the FedEx Customer Protection Center athttps://www.fedex.com/us/security/prevent-fraud.