Datasets:

kkawamu1

/

fmd_train_val

like 0

FMD_train_1386

Cicero on Government Budgeting

05/08/2013

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

False

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

FMD_train_1707

Killer Toilet Spider Warning

08/19/2014

Claim: A man in Ireland killed by the bite of a deadly redback spider. Example: [Collected on the Internet, August 2014] I saw an article in a news paper about the deadly redback spider being in the uk. It was headlined with "KILLER TOILET SPIDER WARNING: Dad dies from deadly redback bite" alot of people on Facebook are freaking out so I just wanted to see if it's true or false. Origins: In August 2014 social media networks were abuzz with reprinted versions of a typically sensationalized Sun article ("Yes, the deadly redback spider is ALREADY in Britain and could be LURKING under your toilet seat") about a 48-year-old man named John Francis Kennedy in Cork, Ireland, who reportedly was bitten on the neck by a "poisonous red-back" spider while watching a movie at home and died of "massive internal bleeding": Sun John Francis Kennedy, who went by the nickname 'JFK', suffered horrifying injuries as a result of the bite, and died last month from massive internal bleeding. His wife Jeanne insists that his death was the result of a spider bite he got last year and her description matches that of the deadly redback, which is one of the few spiders that can be seriously harmful to humans. Sometimes known as the 'toilet spider', redbacks can be commonly found living under toilet seats. The redback spider (Latrodectus hasseltii, also known as the red-striped spider, red-spot spider, and jockey spider) is a species of venomous spider indigenous to Australia, that typically lives in warm, sheltered locations, often in or around human dwellings. The redback is one of the few spider species whose bite does pose a significant risk to humans, as its venom can produce pain, muscle rigidity, vomiting, and sweating, and in some cases death: redback spider Perched in its tangled web, the redback spider lies in wait. She is a relative of the black widow; only the red dorsal stripe distinguishes them. Redbacks are found everywhere throughout the Australian continent, especially alongside human habitation. Only females build webs. Their smaller, less brilliantly colored male counterparts often lurk to the side. Humans must be careful. The spider won't seek out people to sting, but should a hand stray into her web by accident, a trip to the emergency room may be in order as the venom acts directly on the nerves. Only the female bite is dangerous, and their bites have caused some human deaths. The redback possesses a potent neurotoxic venom. It does not hunt its prey, but instead waits for a tasty morsel to wander by and become entangled in its web. Once the prey-usually a walking insect-becomes enmeshed in the redback's web, it's wrapped in silk. When it's time to eat, the spider bites down on its intended victim, injecting its neurotoxic venom. The venom paralyzes the insect, and digestive enzymes begin to dissolve the prey's insides. Antivenom for redback spider bites has been available since 1956, and no known deaths directly attributable to redback bites have been documented in more than fifty years since then, which makes this latest case in Ireland quite a subject of interest. However, note that the victim's wife, Jeanne, stated her husband didn't die soon after being bitten by a spider; he had actually been bitten a year earlier, and then he experienced a long period of declining health with various symptoms before finally passing away in July 2014: Antivenom She said: "He got bitten. We found a spider with a weird red back. "But the bite he got had bled very badly. We went through a roll and a half of toilet roll to try and stop it. "Ever since his health went down. "His stomach started swelling, they said it was his liver and his pancreas. "His testicles also swelled up very bad." Jeanne, 46, went on to describe how John's eyesight deteriorated and he started vomiting BLOOD. He eventually died in hospital last month and an inquest into his death has begun but Jeanne is already convinced it was the spider. "It had to be down to that sting. "He was in perfect health before the bite happened." So there's as yet no certainty that John Francis Kennedy was actually bitten by a redback spider, which had not previously been sighted in Ireland, other than someone's year-old recollection of what the spider in question looked like. And even if that species of spider did deliver a bite to the victim, it's unproven at this point that his death was directly attributable to that bite. He may have died from something else completely coincidental to that bite, he may have been suffering from an undiagnosed medical condition that had already compromised his health and was exacerbated or compounded by the bite's effects, or he may have suffered an allergic reaction to the bite (rather than being killed by the venom itself) a host of alternative explanations are possible. Until additional (and less tabloid-sensational) details are provided about this case, it's far too early to claim this as a verified example of a redback spider bite death in Ireland. And for those locals who fear that such critters are taking up residence in the area: Adam Faulkner, reptile keeper at Drayton Manor Zoo, said: "Redbacks would probably not be able to survive the British climate but they could survive if they found a warm house to live in." Currently there are no national records of redback spider sightings. Last updated: 25 August 2014

NEI

Origins: In August 2014 social media networks were abuzz with reprinted versions of a typically sensationalized Sun article ("Yes, the deadly redback spider is ALREADY in Britain and could be LURKING under your toilet seat") about a 48-year-old man named John Francis Kennedy in Cork, Ireland, who reportedly was bitten on the neck by a "poisonous red-back" spider while watching a movie at home and died of "massive internal bleeding":The redback spider (Latrodectus hasseltii, also known as the red-striped spider, red-spot spider, and jockey spider) is a species of venomous spider indigenous to Australia, that typically lives in warm, sheltered locations, often in or around human dwellings. The redback is one of the few spider species whose bite does pose a significant risk to humans, as its venom can produce pain, muscle rigidity, vomiting, and sweating, and in some cases death:Antivenom for redback spider bites has been available since 1956, and no known deaths directly attributable to redback bites have been documented in more than fifty years since then, which makes this latest case in Ireland quite a subject of interest. However, note that the victim's wife, Jeanne, stated her husband didn't die soon after being bitten by a spider; he had actually been bitten a year earlier, and then he experienced a long period of declining health with various symptoms before finally passing away in July 2014:

FMD_train_970

Is Facebook Issuing New Warnings About 'Extremist Content'?

07/07/2021

In July 2021, some Facebook users reported seeing new warning messages from site administrators about "harmful extremist content" or asking whether they felt someone they knew was "becoming an extremist." The reports authentically captured a new Facebook-led pilot initiative that attempted to help site administrators identify users or content that breached Facebook's existing bans on "objectionable content." According to reputable news outlets, the new messages appeared for some users when they used the desktop or mobile version of Facebook. One notice took the form of a question: "Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?" while the other warned, "You may have been exposed to harmful extremist content recently." Another alert read, according to CNN: "Violent groups try to manipulate your anger and disappointment. [...] You can take action now to protect yourself and others." Reuters reported that Facebook said the small test, which is only on its main platform, was running in the United States as a pilot for a global approach to prevent radicalization on the site. "This test is part of our larger work to assess ways to provide resources and support to people on Facebook who may have engaged with or been exposed to extremist content, or may know someone who is at risk," said a Facebook spokesperson in an emailed statement. "We are partnering with NGOs [non-governmental organizations] and academic experts in this space and hope to have more to share in the future." We reached out to the tech giant's communication team ourselves to discuss the notices, but we have not yet received a response. We will update this report when, or if, that changes. All messages gave recipients the option to "get support" from one or more Facebook partners. A Facebook spokesperson told CNN they included Life After Hate, an advocacy group that helps people leave violent far-right movements. According to Reuters, the effort was part of Facebook's promise to counter extremist content after a user live-streamed himself opening fire at a New Zealand mosque, killing 51 people in March 2019. Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Facebook, confirmed the factualness of CNN's article about the news messages with a tweet. Ultimately, the new warnings were a response to critics who believe the tech giant could have done more to prevent users from circulating false claims during the 2020 election and planning violence like the January 6 Capitol insurrection. In March, for example, Avaaz, a nonprofit that seeks to curb misinformation, uncovered at least 267 pages or groups that it said spread violence-glorifying content, some of which remained active despite Facebook's efforts to block users from such material. Snopes has also identified such groups that have seemingly evaded the site's attempts to ban violent rhetoric, including a militia group in which users discussed plans to open fire on anyone that started rioting after the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, in Kenosha, Wisconsin.

True

The reports authentically captured a new Facebook-led pilot initiative that attempted to help site administrators identify users or content that breached Facebook's existing bans on "objectionable content." For that reason, we rate this claim According to reputable news outlets, the new messages were appearing for some users when they used the desktop or mobile version of Facebook. One notice took the form of a question, "Are you concerned that someone you know is becoming an extremist?" while the other warned, "you may have been exposed to harmful extremist content recently."Reuters reported:All messages gave recipients the option to "get support" from one or more Facebook partners. A Facebook spokesperson told CNN they included Life After Hate, an advocacy group that helps people leave violent far-right movements.According to Reuters, the effort was part of Facebook's promise to counter extremist content after a user live-streamed himself opening fire at a New Zealand mosque killing 51 people in March 2019.Andy Stone, a spokesperson for Facebook, confirmed the factualness of CNN's article about the news messages with the below-displayed tweet.Ultimately, the new warnings were a response to critics who believe the tech giant could have done more to prevent users from circulating false claims during the 2020 election and planning violence like the Jan. 6 Capitol insurrection.In March, for example, Avaaz, a nonprofit that seeks to curb misinformation, uncovered at least 267 pages or groups with connections to that it said spread violence-glorifying content some of which remained active despite Facebook's efforts to block users from such material.Snopes has also identified such groups that have seemingly evaded the site's attempts to ban violent rhetoric, including a militia group in which users discussed plans to open fire on any one that starts rioting after the police shooting of a Black man, Jacob Blake, in Kenosha, Wisconsin.[See here for exclusive Snopes analysis titled, "Violence Brewed in Facebook Groups Ahead of 'Stop The Steal' Protests"]

FMD_train_810

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

01/16/2008

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

False

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

FMD_train_1890

Did Norton Send Renewal Offers for Devices Infected With Viruses?

03/22/2021

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

False

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

FMD_train_1927

Did Shane Patrick Boyle pass away due to his illness following successful fundraising for insulin via a crowdfunding campaign?

11/27/2017

In February 2017, Shane Patrick Boyle started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for "a month of insulin." A few weeks later, he died after developing diabetic ketoacidosis. Although several local outlets reported on Boyle's death at the time, it wasn't until November 2017 that his story reached many readers, thanks in part to a Facebook post from United States Sen. Bernie Sanders linking to an article in The Nation about the rising cost of insulin. The post stated, "We cannot call ourselves a great country as long as our young people are literally dying because they cannot afford life-saving medication." This young man, Shane Patrick Boyle, died on March 18 after his GoFundMe campaign to pay for insulin came up $50 short. Something has got to change. Our job is to stand up to the greed of the pharmaceutical industry and enact policies that make prescription drugs affordable for everyone—not ones that make the CEOs of the pharmaceutical industry rich. In addition to highlighting the sad circumstances surrounding Boyle's death, The Nation also pointed to Alec Raeshawn Smith, a 26-year-old who died in June after he lost his insurance and started to ration his insulin. Alec Raeshawn Smith, age 26, was found dead in his apartment on June 27. He was rationing his insulin after he aged out of his parents' insurance coverage. The sad fact is that more people would be alive today if insulin were affordable for all Americans. The deaths of Smith and Boyle and their reported struggles with health insurance were met with skepticism by some readers. Others encountered this news on social media, where it was shared with incomplete or incorrect information. For instance, comedian David Anthony conflated the deaths of these two individuals when he wrote that a 26-year-old had started a GoFundMe to get insulin: "For the rest of my life, I will never forget a 26-year-old started a GoFundMe to get insulin, didn't get the amount he needed, and died rationing his not costly medicine. Just before Thanksgiving." Alec Raeshawn Smith was 26 years old at the time of his death; however, we have not been able to find anything to indicate that he had set up a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for insulin. (A fundraiser was set up after his death to cover funeral costs.) Shane Patrick Boyle, on the other hand, was older when he died, and he did set up a fundraiser for medication. Smith passed away on June 27, 2017. In his obituary, his family asked for donations to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation and encouraged everyone to sign a petition for affordable health care: "In lieu of flowers, memorial donations may be given to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, www.jdrf.org. We would also like to encourage everyone to go to www.jdrf.org and sign the Coverage 2 Control petition, which will provide affordability, choice, and coverage for people with diabetes." Boyle died of the same treatable complication that killed Smith: diabetic ketoacidosis. Before his death on March 18, 2017, he set up a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for one month of insulin. The only archived version of this campaign is from March 23, 2017, five days after Boyle's death. Although this copy shows that Boyle had raised $1,590 of a $750 goal, it appears that the majority of this money was raised after his passing. (All eight comments were posted in the days following Boyle's death, and the visible donations, more than $200, were posted within a day of its archival date.) Ted Closson, a comic book artist and friend of Boyle's, wrote that Boyle was "$50 shy of his goal" for over two weeks. A second GoFundMe campaign to raise money for a memorial for Boyle and his mother also suggests that the fundraiser was short of the $750 goal at the time of Boyle's passing: "The world lost a wonderful man due to complications of type 1 diabetes. My cousin, Shane Boyle, put everything into taking care of his ailing mother at the expense of his own needs. Shane's mother, Judy Boyle, passed away on March 11, and we lost Shane to diabetes exactly a week later on March 18. After his death, we learned that Shane lost his prescription benefits when he moved to Mena, Arkansas, to care for his mom. We found a GoFundMe where he was trying to raise $750 to get just one more month of insulin and supplies. Unfortunately, he didn't get help in time. Shane died because he was trying to stretch out his life-saving insulin to make it last longer. Shane was working hard to take care of his mother's funeral arrangements when he died. Her service had to be canceled because of the unexpected financial burden of losing two family members in a week's time. I am hoping we can raise the funds for a combined funeral service for Shane and Judy Boyle. If we can raise more than is needed for the service, any remaining funds would go to a charity that provides insulin to diabetics like Shane. We don't want other families to suffer the pain of losing a loved one because they couldn't afford medications. Thank you for any help you can provide, even if all you can offer is a kind message or sharing a special memory." Vice also mentioned the circumstances surrounding Boyle's death in a story about the rising price of insulin. Long before Boyle launched a fundraising campaign, he worried about a Trump presidency's effects on the price of insulin. Immediately after the election, on November 9, 2016, Boyle wrote on Facebook: "Last night/this morning, I was so depressed I did not want to live in this world anymore (and as a type one diabetic, I honestly don't know how long I will live if I lose access to affordable healthcare). Today, I feel more optimistic, not because I think everything is going to be okay, but because I have seen so many of your posts, recognizing the fight that is ahead, and talking about organizing, not just sitting back and complaining or planning for the next election."

True

In February 2017, Shane Patrick Boyle started a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for "a month of insulin." A few weeks later, he died after developing diabetic ketoacidosis. Although several local outlets reported on Boyle's death at the time, it wasn't until November 2017 that Boyle's story reached many readers, thanks in part to a Facebook post from United States Sen. Bernie Sanders linking to an article in The Nation about the rising cost of insulin:In addition to highlighting the sad circumstances surrounding Boyle's death, The Nation also pointed to Alec Raeshawn Smith, a 26-year-old who died in June after he lost his insurance and started to ration his insulin: Dave Anthony (@daveanthony) November 24, 2017Alec Raeshawn Smith was 26 years old at the time of his death; however, we have not been able to find anything to indicate that he had set up a GoFundMe campaign to raise money for insulin. (A fundraiser was set up after his death to cover funeral costs.) Shane Patrick Boyle, on the other hand, was older when he died, and he did set up a fundraiser for medication.Smith passed away on 27 June 2017. In his obituary, his family asked for donations to the Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, and encouraged everyone to sign a petition for affordable health care:In lieu of flowers memorial donations may be given to Juvenile Diabetes Foundation, www.jdrf.org. We would also like to encourage everyone to go to www.jdrf.org and sign the Coverage 2 Control petition which will provide affordability, choice and coverage for people with Diabetes. Ted Closson, a comic book artist and friend of Boyle's, wrote that Boyle was "$50 shy of his goal" for over two weeks:A second GoFundMe campaign to raise money for a memorial for Boyle and his mother also suggests that the fundraiser was short of the $750 goal at the time of Boyle's passing (emphasis ours):Vice also mentioned the circumstances surrounding Boyle's death in a story about the rising price of insulin.Long before Boyle launched a fundraising campaign, he worried about a Trump presidency's effects on the price of insulin. Immediately after the election, on 9 November 2016, Boyle wrote on Facebook (emphasis ours):

FMD_train_627

Idaho clergy members compelled to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies

10/20/2014

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_330

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

12/06/2020

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

False

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. Since the start of the COVID-19 coronavirus in the United States in March 2020, a scam has been circulating on the internet falsely informing viewers that streaming giant Netflix was offering a free one-year subscription due to the pandemic.The text of the scam read, "Due to the CoronaVirus pandemic worldwide, Netflix is giving some free pass for their platform during the period of isolation. Run on the site cause it will end quick!" The post also included a link, which we cropped out because it is likely a phishing site.Netflix is making no such offer, and in fact as of October 2020, it no longer even offered temporary free trials for potential subscribers.In other Netflix-related scams, members of the public reported receiving emails and text messages from scammers posing as Netflix representatives, telling them they need to update their accounts. The company stated it wouldn't seek personal information, like banking or credit card numbers, in texts or emails.

FMD_train_726

Russian forces will be responsible for ensuring the safety at events held in the United States.

07/02/2013

Claim: Russian forces will be providing security at large events in the U.S. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, July 2013] I have been told that some sort of deal between the Obama administration and the Russian govt. would allow Russian military forces to act as security, on American soil, during large, special events (such as Super Bowl) or in the case of national emergencies. Any truth here? I already know how the Constitution treats such things. Now days, it doesn't seem to matter tho. Has FEMA struck an agreement with Russia that will provide for the Russian Military to provide crowd control at U.S. events on American Soil? This was reported as true in a post I saw on FB and reported that these soldiers would be able to fire on and kill Americans on U.S. soil. Origins: On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations: announced The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and the USA Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are going to exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters. This is provided by a protocol of the fourth meeting of the U.S.-Russia Bilateral Presidential Commission Working Group on Emergency Situations and seventeenth meeting of Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations, which took place in Washington on 25 June. The document provides for expert cooperation in disaster response operations and to study the latest practices. In addition, the parties approved of U.S.-Russian cooperation in this field in 2013-2014, which envisages exchange of experience including in monitoring and forecasting emergency situations, training of rescuers, development of mine-rescuing and provision of security at mass events. At the end of the meeting the parties expressed their satisfaction with the level of cooperation between the Russian Federation and the United States in the area of emergency prevention and response and agreed to develop it in order to respond efficiently to all kinds of disasters. The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations: Infowars As part of a deal signed last week in Washington DC between the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry and FEMA, Russian officials will provide "security at mass events" in the United States, a scenario that wont sit well with Americans wary of foreign assets operating on US soil. According to a press release by the Ministry of the Russian Federation for Civil Defense and Emergencies, US and Russian officials met on June 25 at the 17th Joint U.S.-Russia Cooperation Committee on Emergency Situations. In addition to agreeing with FEMA to "exchange experts during joint rescue operations in major disasters," the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry will also be providing "security at mass events" in the United States. This suggests that events designated as "National Special Security Events" by the Department of Homeland Security, which include the Super Bowl, international summits such as the G8 and presidential inaugurations, will now rely partly on Russian authorities to provide security. However, the Infowars article was an alarmist, far-fetched interpretation of the original announcement, which said nothing about Russia's providing security for events taking place within the U.S. The Russian Emergency Situations Ministry announcement merely noted that "provision of security at mass events" was one of the areas of interest which the two countries hoped to study and learn about from each other as part of their joint agreement. FEMA and the Russian news agency RIA Novosti quickly debunked Infowars' unsupported assumption, stating plainly that the U.S. and Russia would not be deploying security guards or military forces in each other's countries: The top US emergency response agency moved to quell a flurry of Internet-driven speculation that Russian security teams could be deployed at large public events in the United States, saying the two countries will not swap security guards or soldiers under a long-running partnership agreement. There will be "no exchange of security or military personnel" under a recently renewed partnership between the US Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and Russias Emergency Situations Ministry, a FEMA spokesman told RIA Novosti. "The agreement continues information-sharing meetings and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers," the spokesman said. Picking up on an Emergency Situations Ministry statement declaring that partnership agreement "envisages the exchange of experience" in "the provision of security at mass events," numerous websites suspicious of the US governments encroachment on its citizens' rights suggested the deal means Russian security guards could be deployed at major public gatherings. The libertarian website Infowars.com, run by radio host and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, proposed these events could include US presidential inaugurations and the Super Bowl. The FEMA spokesman said that while the US agency will not exchange security or military personnel with its Russian counterpart, the two sides "agreed to an exchange of emergency management experts to share best practices a continuation of a 17 year partnership." Last updated: 2 July 2013

False

Origins: On 26 June 2013, Russia announced an agreement between the United States Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Russian Emergency Situations Ministry to share information and observation opportunities with first responders and emergency managers from each other's countries during joint rescue operations:The conspiracy site Infowars then spun this announcement into a claim that Russian military forces would be providing security for large events in the United States such as the Super Bowl and presidential inaugurations:

FMD_train_1239

Is Chili's Donating 15 Percent of Every Sale to Planned Parenthood?

01/25/2017

On 25 January 2017, RedStateWatcher.com published an article misleadingly titled "Popular Restaurant Chain Offering to Fund Planned Parenthood with Portion of Every Sale." Readers predictably inferred from the headline that the Chili's restaurant chain was "fund[ing] Planned Parenthood ... with every sale," prompting an avalanche of angry social media comments on the chain's Facebook page. Many articles popular on Facebook are viewed only in news feeds, meaning that many users may have seen the headline but did not read the underlying article. One commenter expressed their frustration, stating, "I'm really upset over this. Chili's is one of my favorite restaurants, but I may need to seriously rethink my dining options." The commenter claimed that Chili's restaurants in two states had apparently joined with Planned Parenthood to raise funds for the organization. The article cited an anti-abortion blog but did not link to any official information from Chili's announcing or confirming the purported Planned Parenthood initiative. None of the versions we could find specified the origin of the claim, and the only substantiation appeared to be a screenshot of a since-deleted post. We contacted Chili's media relations department for clarification about whether the chain was donating 15 percent of every check to Planned Parenthood in two states or in any location. In a statement we received from Chili's Grill & Bar, a representative for the chain explained: "At Chili's, we have a longstanding history and take pride in giving back to unite our local communities. We recognize every community is unique and encourage our restaurant managers and franchise partners to support causes that help bring communities together and leave a positive impact on our valued guests, neighbors, friends, and families we serve." Yesterday, we learned that an independent franchise partner of Chili's in Indiana and Kentucky made the decision to host a Chili's Give Back Event on behalf of Planned Parenthood Indiana and Kentucky. While our franchise partner had the best intentions, we have received growing feedback and concern from community members regarding the Give Back Event. This feedback does not reflect Chili's focus on bringing communities together, and the event was never intended to be viewed as a partisan event or political statement; therefore, we, along with our franchise partner, have decided to cancel the event. We will more clearly communicate the focus of Chili's charitable giving efforts so that our restaurant managers and franchise partners can feel empowered to support local organizations that bring communities together. The Chili's chain at no point had a plan to donate 15 percent of every check to Planned Parenthood. Rather, a single independent franchisee planned to host a "Chili's Give Back" event in support of Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky, an initiative that Chili's and the franchisee canceled after myriad objections. The backlash was similar to that stemming from prior claims that Olive Garden "funded" Planned Parenthood (false) and that Macy's had stopped "funding" the organization (unproven on both counts).

False

On 25 January 2017, RedStateWatcher.com published an article misleadingly titled "Popular Restaurant Chain Offering to Fund Planned Parenthood with Portion of Every Sale." Readers predictably inferred from the headline that the Chili's restaurant chain was "fund[ing] Planned Parenthood ... with every sale," prompting an avalanche of angry social media comments on the chain's Facebook page. The backlash was similar to that stemming from prior claims that Olive Garden "funded" Planned Parenthood (false), and that Macy's had stopped "funding" the organization (unproven on both counts).

FMD_train_715

Sober.C Virus

01/07/2004

Claim: The FBI's "Department for Illegal Internet Downloads" is sending out automated warning messages via e-mail. . Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003] Subject: You use illegal File Sharing... Ladies and Gentlemen, Downloading of Movies, MP3s and Software is illegal and punishable bylaw. We hereby inform you that your computer was scanned under the IP 94.195.57.211. The contents of your computer were confiscated as an evidence, and you will be indicated. In the next days you will receive the charge in writing. In the Reference code: #34510, are all files, that we found on your computer. The sender address of this mail was masked, to protect us against mail bombs. - You get more detailed information by the Federal Bureau of Investigation -FBI-- Department for "Illegal Internet Downloads", Room 7350- 935 Pennsylvania Avenue- Washington, DC 20535, USA- (202) 324-3000 Origins: The address and phone number given at the foot of the message quoted above are real (they belong to the FBI's Washington, D.C., headquarters), but that's the only thing genuine about this e-mail. headquarters The FBI may have an interest in tracking illegal downloads of copyright-protected material on the Internet, but they don't have a "Department for Illegal Internet Downloads," and they aren't sending out automated messages like the one quoted above to serve notice that "your computer was scanned" and the "contents of your computer were confiscated." If nothing else, the poor grammar and spelling "an evidence" rather than "evidence"; "indicated" rather than "indicted" should be an obvious giveaway that the message is a phony, and likely crafted by a non-native speaker of English. (The latter point is probably confirmed by the fact that similar messages stemming from the same source are sent out with subject lines in German.) The FBI has issued the following denial: denial Attention FBI e-mail hoax alert! Have you recently received an e-mail, purportedly from the FBI, with the subject "Your IP was logged," warning you about illegal downloading of movies and software and saying you are under FBI investigation? If you have, please be advised that the e-mail is a fake the Bureau, even though it does investigative violations of Intellectual Property laws, does not investigate or notify persons under investigation as outlined in the e-mail. It may also contain a virus. If you've received the e-mail, please contact the FBI at www.ifccfbi.gov. This message (which also arrives with subject lines such as "Preliminary investigation were started" [sic] and "Your IP was logged" is actually a carrier for an executable attachment which harbors the Sober.C virus, a mass-mailing worm that affects systems running any version of Microsoft Windows (other than Windows 3.x). When activated for the first time on a target PC, the worm displays a fake error message similar to the following: Sober.C Symantec offers a removal tool for Sober.C on its web site. removal tool Last updated: 29 October 2007 Sources: Varghese, Sam. "Invoking the FBI to Spread Malware." The Sydney Morning Herald. 6 January 2004.

False

Origins: The address and phone number given at the foot of the message quoted above are real (they belong to the FBI's Washington, D.C., headquarters), but that's the only thing genuine about this e-mail.The FBI has issued the following denial:This message (which also arrives with subject lines such as "Preliminary investigation were started" [sic] and "Your IP was logged" is actually a carrier for an executable attachment which harbors the Sober.C virus, a mass-mailing worm that affects systems running any version of Microsoft Windows (other than Windows 3.x). When activated for the first time on a target PC, the worm displays a fake error message similar to the following:Symantec offers a removal tool for Sober.C on its web site.

FMD_train_1000

Was a Marine Told He Can't Fly U.S. and Marine Corps Flags at the Same Time?

04/06/2018

In April 2018, an outrage-instigating meme circulated on Facebook reporting that Jim Lowe, a retired Marine Corps captain, had been forbidden from flying both the American flag and the Marine Corps colors outside his home. The meme instructs users to "like" and "share" if they agree he should be allowed to do so: According to local news reports, the dispute over the flags stemmed from Lowe flying both the Stars and Stripes and the Marine Corps colors from the exterior of his home despite a community rule that allowed only one flag. But Lowe had maintained that because Marines refer to their banner as "colors," it shouldn't count as a flag. The homeowners association had threatened to fine Lowe or even place a lien on his house if he didn't comply. The situation escalated to the point where Lowe threatened to move out of the community, but he never made good on it. According to the local newspaper, The Citizen, Lowe passed away in his Sun City-Peachtree home on 12 September 2016 but not before the combat veteran was able to "give 'em hell." Local news station WTXF reported that in October 2013, Lowe won the battle to fly both the American flag and Marine Corps colors outside his home. threatened The Citizen won the battle Fox News."Georgia Marine Vet Loses Fight to Fly American, Marine Corps Flags." 27 August 2013. Wing, Nick."Georgia Veteran Plans to Leave Retirement Community After Being Told He Cant Fly Two Flags." HuffingtonPost.com.27 August 2013. The Citizen."James Madison Lowe II, Age 76." 16 September 2016. Dillon, Denise."Veteran Wins Battle to Fly U.S., USMC Flags Outside Home." WAGA.30 September 2013.

NEI

The situation escalated to the point where Lowe threatened to move out of the community, but he never made good on it. According to the local newspaper, The Citizen, Lowe passed away in his Sun City-Peachtree home on 12 September 2016 but not before the combat veteran was able to "give 'em hell." Local news station WTXF reported that in October 2013, Lowe won the battle to fly both the American flag and Marine Corps colors outside his home.

FMD_train_502

Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a referral service. They dont do anything except profit from killing babies and then selling body parts of those aborted babies.

10/22/2015

Texas Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick said in a nationally broadcast interview that Planned Parenthood does little more than profit from killing babies. Patrick, a Republican,appeared Oct. 19, 2015, on Your World with Neil Cavuto, a Fox News program. That wasthe day a Texas state official moved to cut off$3.1 million in annual Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, 90 percent of it federal aid, for contraception and health services. That came as a result, the official said, of videos showing doctors for the group altered abortion procedures to procure intact fetal tissue for researchers in violation of federal law. Planned Parenthood, denying misconduct, commented that it was considering its options, including a lawsuit. Patrick, talking to Cavuto, said: Were not going to tolerate Planned Parenthood pretending, Neil, to be something theyre not... Cavuto: Do you think that Planned Parenthood does anything good? Patrick: No. I dont think they do anything good. Look, theyre nothing more than a referral service. They pretend to care about womens health. But they dont have professionals even giving any information to women except referring them to another clinic. They dont have equipment. They dont do anything except profit from killing babies and then selling body parts of those aborted babies. Cavuto: Well, I understand your passions, sir. But they do a little bit more than that. Patrick: Very little. Theres been debate about what the videos taken with hidden cameras by the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group, show about sales of fetal tissue. But on Oct. 7, 2015,PolitiFact Florida rated Falsea claim that Planned Parenthood has now (been) found to also illegally sell baby parts. Federal law permits fetal tissue donations to researchers. Abortion providers also are allowed to charge a fee for facilitating such donations. We focused our sights on whether Patrick is right that Planned Parenthood solely provides abortions. To our request for backup information, Patricks spokesman, Alejandro Garcia, said by phone: We dont have anything further to add. Past fact checks In August 2015, PolitiFactrated Pants on Firea claim by Jeb Bush that Planned Parenthood is not actually doing womens health issues. That story said Planned Parenthood offers contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, prenatal services and cancer screenings, including breast exams, though not mammograms. In September 2012, PolitiFact Georgiarated Truea claim that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms. Planned Parenthood refers women to mammography providers. Earlier, in April 2011,PolitiFact rated Falsea claim that abortion services are well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does. That story, citing a Planned Parenthood fact sheet, concluded that abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, then the most recent year for which the group was reporting statistics. There is lately more up-to-date information. On Planned Parenthoods website, we spotted aBy the Numbers documentlast updated in July 2015 stating that 34 percent of its health services are contraceptive services and 3 percent are abortions. Another document,Services,states that in 2013, Planned Parenthood provided more than 4.4 million services related to testing men and women for sexually transmitted infections or diseases; more than 3.5 million contraception services; more than 935,000 services related to cancer prevention and detection; some 1.1 million pregnancy and prenatal services; 327,653 abortions; and nearly 132,000 other services. The most prevalent listed contraception service was reversible contraception for women (2.1 million services). The most common cancer screening was breast exams/breast care (487,029 services). That story said that a Planned Parenthood spokeswoman said doctors and nurses at Planned Parenthood health centers provide clinical breast exams and refer patients to facilities with technicians for mammograms based on breast exams, age or family history; she said Planned Parenthood also refers women to breast specialists when a potential abnormality is found and follow-up tests are needed. According to the July 2015 list, Planned Parenthoods most common pregnancy services in 2013 were pregnancy tests (1.1 million services). Other identified services include HIV tests (704,000 services); emergency contraception kits (1.4 million services) and Pap tests (378,692 services). A longer view: Nationally from 2006 through 2013, the number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood essentially held steady, with marginal increases and a modest peak in 2009, according to an Oct. 1, 2015,PolitiFact article. That story presented a chart showing how the number of specific services provided by Planned Parenthood went up or down from 2006 to 2013, based on Planned Parenthoods annual reports from 2006 to 2013 (though a report from 2008 didnt turn up): Another chart, likewise drawing from the annual reports, showed counts for abortion and non-abortion services provided by the group: Caveats Per all these figures, its worth repeating caveats offered by PolitiFact in 2011: --First, many people would acknowledge a difference between providing an abortion and, say, handing out a pack of condoms or conducting a blood test. The former is a significant surgical procedure, whereas the latter are quick and inexpensive services. So Planned Parenthoods use of services as its yardstick likely decreases abortions prominence compared with what other measurements would show. Using dollars spent or hours devoted to patient care would likely put abortion above 3 percent in the calculations. --Second, Planned Parenthood self-reported these numbers, though the group says each affiliates numbers are independently audited. This basically means observers must accept their accuracy more or less on faith. Planned Parenthood In Texas To our inquiry about Patricks claim, Yvonne Gutierrez of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes,which saysit battles to protect womens health care access, said the same range of services are offered in Texas by the group. Gutierrez emailed us an undatedPlanned Parenthood documentindicating that in 2013, its Texas clinics had 150,710 patients including 108,533 contraception patients. The document showed state-by-state counts in those categories and for Pap tests plus tests for sexually transmitted infections, breast exams and sex education and outreach. Gutierrez also emailed us achart, attributed to state agencies, distributed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The chart shows $3.1 billion in Medicaid spending on Planned Parenthood-provided services in the fiscal year through Aug. 31, 2015. That spending covered Medicaid reimbursements and payments through health plans for patients who went to Planned Parenthood clinics, Gutierrez said. We also asked Gutierrez about Planned Parenthood in Texas making fetal tissue available for research. Planned Parenthood Greater Texas and Planned Parenthood South have never participated in fetal tissue research projects, she replied by email, and have no plans to do so. While Planned Parenthood Center for Choice (in Houston) does not currently participate in a fetal tissue study, they have taken part in such worthy studies in the past, following all laws and the highest medical and ethical standards. These studies hold the potential to cure disease and save lives. They last partnered with UTMB, the University of Texas Medical Branch, on a study to prevent miscarriage. Our ruling Patrick said Planned Parenthood is nothing more than a referral service. They dont do anything except profit from killing babies and then selling body parts of those aborted babies. To the contrary, Planned Parenthood provides family planning and other womens health services, including abortions and theres been no confirmation it sells body parts. We rate this incorrect and ridiculous statement Pants on Fire. PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

False

Patrick, a Republican,appeared Oct. 19, 2015, on Your World with Neil Cavuto, a Fox News program. That wasthe day a Texas state official moved to cut off$3.1 million in annual Medicaid funding to Planned Parenthood, 90 percent of it federal aid, for contraception and health services. That came as a result, the official said, of videos showing doctors for the group altered abortion procedures to procure intact fetal tissue for researchers in violation of federal law. Planned Parenthood, denying misconduct, commented that it was considering its options, including a lawsuit.Theres been debate about what the videos taken with hidden cameras by the Center for Medical Progress, an anti-abortion group, show about sales of fetal tissue. But on Oct. 7, 2015,PolitiFact Florida rated Falsea claim that Planned Parenthood has now (been) found to also illegally sell baby parts. Federal law permits fetal tissue donations to researchers. Abortion providers also are allowed to charge a fee for facilitating such donations.In August 2015, PolitiFactrated Pants on Firea claim by Jeb Bush that Planned Parenthood is not actually doing womens health issues. That story said Planned Parenthood offers contraception, sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment, pregnancy testing, prenatal services and cancer screenings, including breast exams, though not mammograms. In September 2012, PolitiFact Georgiarated Truea claim that Planned Parenthood does not provide mammograms. Planned Parenthood refers women to mammography providers.Earlier, in April 2011,PolitiFact rated Falsea claim that abortion services are well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does. That story, citing a Planned Parenthood fact sheet, concluded that abortions accounted for just under 3 percent of the procedures Planned Parenthood provided in 2009, then the most recent year for which the group was reporting statistics.There is lately more up-to-date information. On Planned Parenthoods website, we spotted aBy the Numbers documentlast updated in July 2015 stating that 34 percent of its health services are contraceptive services and 3 percent are abortions.Another document,Services,states that in 2013, Planned Parenthood provided more than 4.4 million services related to testing men and women for sexually transmitted infections or diseases; more than 3.5 million contraception services; more than 935,000 services related to cancer prevention and detection; some 1.1 million pregnancy and prenatal services; 327,653 abortions; and nearly 132,000 other services.A longer view: Nationally from 2006 through 2013, the number of abortions provided by Planned Parenthood essentially held steady, with marginal increases and a modest peak in 2009, according to an Oct. 1, 2015,PolitiFact article. That story presented a chart showing how the number of specific services provided by Planned Parenthood went up or down from 2006 to 2013, based on Planned Parenthoods annual reports from 2006 to 2013 (though a report from 2008 didnt turn up):To our inquiry about Patricks claim, Yvonne Gutierrez of Planned Parenthood Texas Votes,which saysit battles to protect womens health care access, said the same range of services are offered in Texas by the group. Gutierrez emailed us an undatedPlanned Parenthood documentindicating that in 2013, its Texas clinics had 150,710 patients including 108,533 contraception patients. The document showed state-by-state counts in those categories and for Pap tests plus tests for sexually transmitted infections, breast exams and sex education and outreach.Gutierrez also emailed us achart, attributed to state agencies, distributed by the Texas Health and Human Services Commission. The chart shows $3.1 billion in Medicaid spending on Planned Parenthood-provided services in the fiscal year through Aug. 31, 2015. That spending covered Medicaid reimbursements and payments through health plans for patients who went to Planned Parenthood clinics, Gutierrez said.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_673

Young women today in metropolitan areaswho are childless and single are out-earning childless, single young males.

04/09/2014

Why is it that women make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns? You have likely heard this statistic, which was prominently featured on cable news networks Tuesday to mark Equal Pay Day. For many Democrats, it symbolizes an unfairness in the pay structures of jobs across America. However, conservatives argue that the situation is more complex and is as much about life choices as it is about fundamental inequality. We watched the debate unfold between conservative pundit Sabrina Schaeffer and liberal pundit Elizabeth Plank on MSNBC's The Reid Report, and again later between former White House adviser Anita Dunn and conservative pundit Genevieve Wood on CNN's The Lead with Jake Tapper. "If you compare women to men in the same job with similar backgrounds and experiences, the wage gap all but disappears," Wood said. "Women have made great strides. Instead of celebrating that, this is a political year; the White House wants to portray this as a war on women. Not only are the numbers wrong—young women today in metropolitan areas, for example, are actually outperforming males in that same category all over the country." Dunn pushed back, stating, "I'm going to jump in a little on that because I think that it's true that women are making enormous progress, but you know, as well as I do, that as they get older in the workforce, those disparities start to grow. There are all kinds of reasons that this happens, and an important discussion across the board is how we continue to ensure that progress continues." PolitiFact has provided the details about the 77 cents statistic—you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Essentially, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when comparing women and men in the exact same jobs with the same levels of experience and education. We at PunditFact want to examine the argument presented by conservatives. In this case, we are checking Wood—a conservative pundit with the Heritage Foundation—who said, "Young women today in metropolitan areas, for example, who are childless, single young women are actually outperforming males in that same category all over the country." The basis of Wood's claim directed us to a 2012 U.S. News and World Report article that was reposted on the website of the conservative American Enterprise Institute. The article includes the following line: "Census data from 2008 show that single, childless women in their 20s now earn 8 percent more on average than their male counterparts in metropolitan areas." This aligns with what Wood said on CNN. Further analysis comes from James Chung of Reach Advisors, a private research firm based in New York. Chung spent about a year analyzing 2008 data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey, focusing on the earnings of men and women in metropolitan areas. The actual study was never released, only some of the findings. Among what was released in September 2010 was this: "The median full-time salaries of young women in America's metropolitan areas are 8 percent higher than those of the men in their peer group." A breakdown provided for Time magazine included a look at specific cities. In Atlanta, young unmarried childless women made 21 percent more than men, while in Los Angeles, young women made 12 percent more than their counterparts. This news was also reported by NPR and CBS News. The American Enterprise Institute converted specific numbers into a graphic to illustrate how women are out-earning men in some cases. Chung mentioned that he has not updated his analysis to reflect how the figures have changed since 2008 and no longer circulates the analysis as current since it is now four years out of date. No one else, to our knowledge, has attempted to recreate Chung's specific analysis, and we found no criticism of his methodology. We did come across an analysis by Pew Research, which examined earnings trends for all women between 25 and 34 (a broader and older group). Compared to all men of the same age, Pew Research found that women earn 93 percent of what men earn. This represents a smaller gap than when considering all women and all men, according to Pew. We sent Wood's statement to Chung and asked for his perspective. While Wood is careful to note that she was discussing childless, single young women in metropolitan areas, Chung pointed out that Wood failed to mention that the analysis concerned median incomes between men and women. Why is that important? Median income figures look at earnings in the aggregate rather than comparing like jobs or professions. This leaves the claim open to the same criticism that Republicans levy against Democrats when they assert that women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man does. In the case of Chung's findings, the reason young women in metropolitan areas earn more than young men is that they are 50 percent more likely to graduate from college. As a result, they occupy more of the entry-level knowledge-based economy jobs than young men, Chung explained. He stated that it would be entirely incorrect to imply that these women outearn men with similar jobs or similar educations. The bottom line is that in a world where most players are seeking a sound bite to support a specific position, this is actually a rather complex issue. "Things aren't exactly as equal as some people say, but it's not always as dire as others claim," Chung said. Our ruling: Wood stated, "Young women today in metropolitan areas, for example, who are childless, single young women are actually outperforming males in that same category all over the country." The statement traces back to a credible analysis of 2008 Census Bureau data that examines median incomes in metropolitan areas—a fact that Wood overlooks. However, she gets most of the other details correct, and while the information is now six years old, we were unable to find more recent research to confirm or disprove the point. Finally, we should note that this comparison holds true because childless, single young women tend to have more education and qualify for higher-paying jobs. Wood's statement is accurate but requires clarification. We rate it Mostly True.

True

PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic -- you can read the two most important works in this areahereandhere. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education.We at PunditFact want to look at the argument being offered by conservatives. In this case, we are checking Wood --a conservative pundit with the Heritage Foundation-- who said, Young women today in metropolitan areas, for example, who are childless, single young women are actually outperforming males in that same category all over the country.Wood directed us to a 2012U.S. News and World Reportarticle thatwas reposted on the websiteof the conservative American Enterprise Institute.Among what was released in September 2010 was this:The median full-time salaries of young women in Americas metropolitan areas are 8 percent higherthan those of the guys in their peer group.A breakdown provided forTimemagazine included a look at specific cities. In Atlanta, young unmarried childless women made 21 percent more than men, Chung found. In Los Angeles, young women made 12 percent more than their cohorts. The newsalso was reported by NPRandCBS News.We did come across an analysis byPew Research, which looked earnings trends for all women between 25 and 34 (a broader and older group). Compared to all men of the same age, Pew Research found women earn 93 percent of what a man earns. That's a smaller gap than when considering all women and all men, Pew found.

FMD_train_1931

Home Sales Tax

04/24/2010

Claim: A provision of "Obamacare" health care legislation creates a 3.8% Medicare tax on real estate transactions. Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% tax on all home sales. Health care legislation imposes a 3.8% transaction tax on profits over the capital gains threshold. Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2010] 3.8% tax on real estate transactions. Under the new health care bill, did you know that all real estate transactions are subject to a 3.8% "Sales Tax"? You can thank Nancy, Harry, and Barack (and your local Congressmen) for this one. If you sell your $400,000 home, this will result in a $15,200 tax. Remember Obama's battle cry: take from the workers and give to the drones. TAX ON HOME SALES imposes a 3.8 percent tax on home sales and other real estate transactions. Middle-income people must pay the full tax even if they are "rich" for only one day—the day they sell their house and buy a new one. Origins: One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013: HR 4872. The PPACA creates a new Code Section 1411, which will generally impose a 3.8 percent tax on the lesser of "net investment income" or the excess of modified adjusted gross income over a "threshold amount" (generally, $250,000 for taxpayers filing a joint return, $125,000 for married taxpayers filing a separate return, and $200,000 in all other cases). Net investment income generally means the excess of (i) interest, dividends, annuities, royalties, rents, income from passive activities, income from trading financial instruments and commodities, and gain from the disposition of certain non-business property, over (ii) allowable deductions properly allocable to such income. In determining the amount of net investment income, special rules apply with respect to dispositions of equity interests in certain partnerships and S corporations, and to distributions from certain qualified plans. This additional tax applies to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2012. This is a complicated section of a complicated piece of legislation, and the 3.8% Medicare tax has been frequently misreported as amounting to a 3.8% "sales tax" on all real estate transactions. This is incorrect: the Medicare tax is not a sales tax, nor does it apply to all real estate transactions; it is a tax on investment income (income which may or may not derive from the sale of property) only for persons who earn more than the amounts specified in the bill. First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income of more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households. Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount. As Sara Orrange, Government Affairs Director of the Spokane Association of Realtors, noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review: In his recent guest column regarding the impact of the health care bill, Paul Guppy of the Washington Policy Center claimed that a 3.8 percent tax on all home sales was a part of the recently passed legislation. This is inaccurate and needs to be corrected. The truth about the bill is that if you sell your home for a profit above the capital gains threshold of $250,000 per individual or $500,000 per couple, then you would be required to pay the additional 3.8 percent tax on any gain realized over this threshold. Most people who sell their homes will not be impacted by these new regulations. This is not a new tax on every seller, and that correction needs to be made. This tax is aimed at so-called "high earners"—if you do not fall into that category, you will not pay any extra taxes upon the sale of your home. For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit. Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross income profits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale). The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser: exclude a) The amount by which the couple's taxable income now exceeds the $250,000 income threshold level. b) The amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home. In case (a), the dollar figure would be the couple's taxable income ($375,000) minus the income threshold level ($250,000), or $125,000. In case (b), the dollar figure would be the amount of taxable income gained from the sale of their home, which, as detailed above, was $50,000 (i.e., $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion). The second dollar amount is the lesser of the two, and therefore the couple would have to pay an additional tax of 3.8 percent of $50,000, which would amount to $1,900. (If the hypothetical couple had realized less than a $500,000 profit on the sale of their residence, none of that gain would be subject to the 3.8% tax.) The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount. In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700, the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. Additional information: The 3.8% Tax: Real Estate Scenarios & Examples Last updated: 15 March 2012 Sahadi, Jeanne. "Medicare Tax Hikes: What the Rich Will Pay." CNNMoney.com. 25 March 2010.

True

Origins: One of the provisions in the reconciliation bill (HR 4872) passed in conjunction with the Patient Protection Affordable Care Act (PPACA) health care legislation calls for high-income households to be subject to a new 3.8% Medicare tax on investment income starting in 2013:First of all, the Medicare tax will be imposed only on individuals with an income above $200,000 and couples with a joint income more than $250,000, a figure which currently excludes about 97% of all U.S. households. Second, the tax will not be assessed on every house sale, but only on real estate transactions that produce profits over a specified dollar amount. As Sara Orrange, Government affairs director of the Spokane Association of Realtors noted in response to a repetition of the "sales tax" rumor in the Spokane Spokesman-Review:For example, let's assume that a couple with an income of $325,000 bought a house in 2004 for $300,000 and resold it in 2013 for $850,000, thus producing a $550,000 profit. Since U.S. law allows a couple to exclude from their gross incomeprofits of up to $500,000 from the sale of their principal residence, the taxable gain from this sale would be $50,000 (i.e., a $550,000 profit minus the $500,000 exclusion), and the couple's taxable income would now be $375,000 (i.e., the original $325,000 plus the $50,000 of taxable profit from their home sale). The 3.8% Medicare tax would now apply to whichever of the following dollar figures is the lesser:The referenced tax is therefore not a tax on all real estate sales; it is an investment income tax which could result in a very small percentage of home sellers paying additional taxes on home sales profits over a designated threshold amount. In short, if you're a "high earner" and you sell your home at a substantial profit, you might be required to pay an additional 3.8% tax. However, given that only about 3% of U.S. households have incomes that exceed the specified income threshold amount, the existing home sale capital gains exclusion on a principal residence ($250,000 for individuals, $500,000 for couples) still stands, and the national median existing-home price in January 2012 was only $154,700 , the Medicare tax will likely affect only a very small percentage of home sellers when it is implemented in 2013. The 3.8% Tax:Real Estate Scenarios & Examples

FMD_train_1224

Is Biden Admin Restarting Border Wall Construction?

04/07/2021

In early April 2021, Snopes readers asked us to investigate rumors that U.S. President Joe Biden's administration was considering a continuous wall between Mexico and the U.S. and potentially restarting construction on it. Among the entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Through statements like the Facebook post displayed below, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign. While it was false to claim the Biden administration had warmed up to the border wall as a solution to immigration problems, it was true that funding was allowed for "limited construction" (via unspecified congressional actions) to occur during the Biden presidency, according to The White House. Below, we lay out evidence for those conclusions. First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security." As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing—about one-third of the length of the entire border. The Associated Press reported that Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of canceling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports. Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees. It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet—such as The Associated Press or Reuters—reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting). According to the purported notes, Mayorkas said CBP leaders have submitted proposals for "different projects" along the border wall because officials supposedly have the opportunity to finish or update certain areas. Here's his full quote in The Washington Times: "The president has communicated quite clearly his decision that the emergency that triggered the devotion of DOD funds to the construction of the border wall is ended. But that leaves room to make decisions as part of the administration, in particular areas of the wall that need renovation, particular projects that need to be finished," he said. He mentioned those parts include "gaps," "gates," and areas "where the wall has been completed but the technology has not been implemented." Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments. It is unclear how, or under what congressional action or work contract, border officials could legally access said funding for the potential construction. We reached out to agencies including the White House and DHS for clarity on that legality, and we did not receive a response. We will update this report when, or if, we do. During daily press briefings on April 6 and 7, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki confirmed previously approved congressional actions set aside funding for "some components of the wall" and "limited construction." Her comments did not explain the nature of that construction, nor when it would take place. Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event: "Wall construction remains paused, to the extent permitted by law. So some has already been funded through a congressional authorization and funding allocation. But as agencies develop a plan, it's paused while agencies are developing a plan for the President on the management of the federal funds. When the administration took office, as you referenced, funds had been diverted from congressionally appropriated military construction projects and other appropriated purposes toward building the wall. And wall construction was being challenged in multiple lawsuits—and for much of the wall, I should say; not all of it—by plaintiffs who allege serious environmental and safety issues. Under those circumstances, federal agencies are continuing to review wall contracts and develop a plan to submit to the President soon. It is paused. There is some limited construction that has been funded and allocated for, but it is otherwise paused." The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript. "There are some components of the wall that had already been allocated," she said. "We don't believe the wall is an answer. We have never believed the wall is an answer to addressing the challenges—immigration challenges at the border. There's a review underway of, kind of, where this funding had been allocated and not, but it's currently paused for the most part." Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall." In sum, the nature of the "limited construction" that could still take place on the wall under the Biden administration is unknown—no evidence showed it would extend the barrier's length. For that reason, and those listed above, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of true and misleading information.

NEI

Among entities that highlighted the claim was Charlie Kirk's conservative political group, Turning Point USA. Via statements like the below-displayed Facebook post, the group and other Biden critics attempted to frame the rumor as evidence of the president's alleged hypocrisy; he had promised not to build "another foot of wall" during his 2020 presidential campaign.First, the claim surfaced after Biden issued an executive order on Jan. 20 pausing a stream of federal funding toward border-wall construction initiated by former President Donald Trump. Trump had framed the multi-billion-dollar spending as a necessary step to curb illegal border crossings by people fleeing poor living conditions in Central American nations. By contrast, Biden dubbed the concept "a waste of money that diverts attention from genuine threats to our homeland security."As of Jan. 15, 2021, the government had spent $6.1 billion of the $10.8 billion in work it signed contracts to have done, according to a Senate Democratic aide who spoke on the condition of anonymity to The Associated Press (AP). Around that time, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), the agency that oversees border security and operations, said the wall, in total, spanned 771 miles, including vehicle barriers and pedestrian fencing about one-third of the length of the entire border.Biden's executive order halted "immediately the obligation of funds related to construction of the southern border wall, to the extent permitted by law," and required his administration to determine the cost of cancelling in-process construction contracts and whether the money could be spent elsewhere, according to the order and news reports.Cut to April 5, when the Washington Times, a conservative-leaning news outlet, published an article titled, "EXCLUSIVE: Biden's DHS may restart border wall construction to plug 'gaps'." The reporting was based on notes supposedly documenting a meeting the previous week between Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) employees.It was unclear, based on The Washington Times report, when or under what circumstances the purported meeting took place, as well as how the media outlet obtained the notes. No reputable news outlet -- such as The Associated Press or Reuters -- reported on the alleged conversation about filling in "gaps" at the border wall (aside from Business Insider, which primarily recirculated The Washington Times' reporting).Put another way, despite Biden's order to stop pumping emergency dollars into the project, Mayorkas purportedly said an unidentified sum of money could still be used to repair or update certain areas. Such construction could include gates or technology improvements, according to his alleged comments.Here's the verbatim transcription of her statement on April 6, according to an official White House transcript and C-SPAN video recording of the media event:The following day, she reiterated the same points, stressing the administration's overall opposition to the border-wall concept, according to C-SPAN and a White House transcript. Meanwhile, criticism of the Biden administration's alleged participation in border-wall construction surfaced among progressives. U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, a Minnesota Democrat, tweeted on April 7: "It's shameful and unacceptable for @POTUS to continue the construction of Trump's xenophobic and racist wall."

FMD_train_1746

Drone Strike

06/24/2015

FACT CHECK: Does avideo show a drone airplane clipping the wing of an airliner? Claim: Avideo shows a drone airplane clipping the wing of an airliner. Origins: On 23 June 2015, a video purportedly showing a drone airpline clipping the wing of a passenger plane and shearing off the wingtip was uploaded to the web siteLiveleak: Some idiot's drone crossed our take-off path.I'm still alive! The plane wing shown in the above-displayed video has the same colors as Southwest Airlines, but a closer look reveals that the company's namehas been replaced with the URL for visual effects artist Bruce Branit's website, Branit.com: Branit.com Shortly after the above-displayed video went viral, Branit publisheda blog post explaining that it was fake: blog post Lately, I've beenlooking for little videos to make with no budget, an iPhone and some CGI. After shooting this footage of NYC as we were climbing out of Laguardia (thanks FAA for finally letting us keep our phones in airplane mode during take-off), I thought it might be a challenge to make something go by or even strike the wing. This is the same air corridor that Captain "Skully" ditched his Airbus A320in the Hudson after a double bird strike, saving all on-board. But I chose to make a drone zip past instead of a birdand tear off a section of the winglet. Branit also published another video showing how he created the "drone hits plane" viral video: Last updated: 24 June 2015

False

The plane wing shown in the above-displayed video has the same colors as Southwest Airlines, but a closer look reveals that the company's namehas been replaced with the URL for visual effects artist Bruce Branit's website, Branit.com:Shortly after the above-displayed video went viral, Branit publisheda blog post explaining that it was fake:

FMD_train_412

President Obama and the Ice Bucket Challenge

08/19/2014

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_1411

Is a Ukraine Pavilion Coming to EPCOT at Disney World?

03/15/2022

In early March 2022, as Russia continued its invasion of Ukraine, Uncle Walt's Insider published an article positing that the Walt Disney World Resort theme park known as EPCOT would soon be adding a Ukraine pavilion to the World Showcase attraction. Russia invasion of Ukraine article Walt Disney World Resort EPCOT Ukraine However, this was satire. The beginning of the article referenced Bob Chapek, who is the chief executive officer for The Walt Disney Company: Bob Chapek The Walt Disney Company Ukraine Pavilion coming to EPCOT They probably shouldn't build it next to the Russia Pavilion. WORLD SHOWCASE LAGOON, FL Bob "Bob" Chapek has announced that he intends to bring a new country to EPCOT: Ukraine! Chapek probably said this in a phone call with our own Uncle Walt. EPCOT "As I was counting money with the news playing in the background, I suddenly had this great and innovative idea come to mind. I phoned up the boys in Glendale, and after a quick discussion we have decided to allow Ukraine to join the host of other nations around the World Showcase Lagoon!" The story also said that the Ukraine pavilion at EPCOT would feature "a brand new ride" called "Escape from Chernobyl" and even took a humorous jab at Chapek's intelligence. Ukraine EPCOT Chernobyl As noted above, this article was not a factual recounting of real-life events. It originated from a silly and lighthearted website that aims to write fun and interesting fiction for its loyal readers. Uncle Walt's Insider describes its output as being "loving" and satirical in nature, as follows: describes "While we all love Disney, the company really likes to control its own image and doesnt always look kindly on anything that might detract from it like a satire site that occasionally takes loving jabs at it." Disney The website also showed the following disclaimer on a policies page linked below the story about the Ukraine pavilion coming to EPCOT: page Ukraine EPCOT "All events, persons, and companies depicted herein, including Disney, Walt Disney, and The Disney Company, are fictitious, and any similarity to actual persons, living, dead or otherwise, or to actual firms, is coincidental. Really. The same goes for any similarities to actual facts." Walt Disney Fireworks light up the night sky at EPCOT in 2014. (Courtesy: Jeff Krause/Flickr) Jeff Krause/Flickr While the article from Uncle Walt's Insider was simply just humorous satire, we did find that a handful of social media users had mentioned the idea of having a Ukraine pavilion at EPCOT. One person seemed to hint at wanting a special place for the country to be created inside the theme park: Ukraine EPCOT hint at Another tweet conveyed the same sort of message: conveyed Others had the idea for something to be set up inside the park for charitable purposes: idea charitable purposes TheDisneyBlog.com even tweeted the following, saying: "It is becoming clear that EPCOT needs to add Ukraine to the World Showcase": TheDisneyBlog.com tweeted EPCOT Ukraine We found several past references to the possibility of a Ukraine pavilion being created in EPCOT. Ukraine EPCOT In 2003, a forum user on the wdwmagic.com message boards posted: "Did You Hear the One About EPCOT's Ukranian Pavilion?" wdwmagic.com posted The thread on the forum mentioned an old article that came from the Ukrainian Weekly publication. While the story link from 1996 was no longer accessible in 2022, we found that it had been archived by Archive.org: Ukrainian Weekly it had been archived Archive.org Ukrainian pavilion idea advances at Disney World's EPCOT Center by Natalia Warren LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. - Jason Harper, president of the Ukrainian Project Fund recently met with George Kalogridis, executive vice-president of EPCOT Center at Walt Disney World, to further discuss plans for the proposed Ukrainian Pavilion. EPCOT Walt Disney World As a result of the meeting, Mr. Kalogridis added Ukraine to a list that includes two other countries vying for the site between the Chinese and German pavilions. Mr. Kalogridis also gave Mr. Harper the go-ahead to discuss the pavilion project with other Walt Disney Company officials. Ukraine ... Besides architectural sketches of Ukrainian-style buildings, a drawing for a roller coaster ride, and photos of souvenirs, the proposal includes a videotape of Ukrainian dancing, provided by the Rusalka Dance Company of Winnipeg, which also has lent its name in part to the proposed sit-down restaurant, Club Rusalka. In an earlier agreement, the Canadian dance ensemble had agreed to perform twice a year to raise funds for the UPF Ukrainian Pavilion project and to appear live for future corporate proposal events. We also stumbled upon the following snippet from The San Francisco Examiner that had been published 30 years before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The writer appeared to joke about the idea of a pavilion for Russia or Ukraine coming to EPCOT: snippet The San Francisco Examiner Russia's invasion of Ukraine Russia Ukraine EPCOT This story was published on March 8, 1992. (Courtesy: The San Francisco Examiner) While Russia and Ukraine do not have pavilions in EPCOT, the website for Walt Disney World Resort lists the 11 countries that do. They include Mexico, Norway, China, Germany, Italy, the United States, Japan, Morocco, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada: Russia Ukraine EPCOT website Join us on an inspiring journey through one of the most unique areas in any Disney theme parkWorld Showcase. The World Showcase: DestiNations Discovered tour is a fascinating 4.5-hour walking excursion through 11 "countries" and 4,000 years of history, culture, and food. From the streets of Paris to the Bavarian countryside, guests can immerse themselves in the architecture, landscapes, streetscapes, attractions, shops, and restaurants of 11 themed pavilionseach staffed by actual citizens from these countries. World Showcase began as a personal passion of Walt Disney, who envisioned an Experimental Prototype Community of Tomorrow (EPCOT), a global community where visiting guests could assimilate the sights and sounds of the world. According to the Disney bloggers known as The Mouselets, EPCOT once announced pavilions for Spain, Israel, and Equatorial Africa. However, those plans never came to fruition. The Mouselets The Germany pavilion at the World Showcase at EPCOT. (Courtesy: Darcy/Flickr) Darcy/Flickr On Feb. 25, right after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, Disney's Voices of Liberty appeared to sing a song for Ukraine in EPCOT's America Gardens Theatre. The tune was "Let There Be Peace On Earth." The post included the hashtag, "#prayforukraine": Voices of Liberty sing a song In sum, the rumor about a Ukraine pavilion coming to EPCOT's World Showcase originated from a satirical website. It's unclear what countries might be added in the future to the Disney World property. Ukraine Disney World

False

In early March 2022, as Russia continued its invasion of Ukraine, Uncle Walt's Insider published an article positing that the Walt Disney World Resort theme park known as EPCOT would soon be adding a Ukraine pavilion to the World Showcase attraction.The beginning of the article referenced Bob Chapek, who is the chief executive officer for The Walt Disney Company:WORLD SHOWCASE LAGOON, FL Bob "Bob" Chapek has announced that he intends to bring a new country to EPCOT: Ukraine! Chapek probably said this in a phone call with our own Uncle Walt.The story also said that the Ukraine pavilion at EPCOT would feature "a brand new ride" called "Escape from Chernobyl" and even took a humorous jab at Chapek's intelligence.As noted above, this article was not a factual recounting of real-life events. It originated from a silly and lighthearted website that aims to write fun and interesting fiction for its loyal readers. Uncle Walt's Insider describes its output as being "loving" and satirical in nature, as follows:"While we all love Disney, the company really likes to control its own image and doesnt always look kindly on anything that might detract from it like a satire site that occasionally takes loving jabs at it."The website also showed the following disclaimer on a policies page linked below the story about the Ukraine pavilion coming to EPCOT:"All events, persons, and companies depicted herein, including Disney, Walt Disney, and The Disney Company, are fictitious, and any similarity to actual persons, living, dead or otherwise, or to actual firms, is coincidental. Really. The same goes for any similarities to actual facts." Fireworks light up the night sky at EPCOT in 2014. (Courtesy: Jeff Krause/Flickr)While the article from Uncle Walt's Insider was simply just humorous satire, we did find that a handful of social media users had mentioned the idea of having a Ukraine pavilion at EPCOT. One person seemed to hint at wanting a special place for the country to be created inside the theme park:Another tweet conveyed the same sort of message:Others had the idea for something to be set up inside the park for charitable purposes:TheDisneyBlog.com even tweeted the following, saying: "It is becoming clear that EPCOT needs to add Ukraine to the World Showcase":We found several past references to the possibility of a Ukraine pavilion being created in EPCOT.In 2003, a forum user on the wdwmagic.com message boards posted: "Did You Hear the One About EPCOT's Ukranian Pavilion?"The thread on the forum mentioned an old article that came from the Ukrainian Weekly publication. While the story link from 1996 was no longer accessible in 2022, we found that it had been archived by Archive.org:LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla. - Jason Harper, president of the Ukrainian Project Fund recently met with George Kalogridis, executive vice-president of EPCOT Center at Walt Disney World, to further discuss plans for the proposed Ukrainian Pavilion.As a result of the meeting, Mr. Kalogridis added Ukraine to a list that includes two other countries vying for the site between the Chinese and German pavilions. Mr. Kalogridis also gave Mr. Harper the go-ahead to discuss the pavilion project with other Walt Disney Company officials.We also stumbled upon the following snippet from The San Francisco Examiner that had been published 30 years before Russia's invasion of Ukraine. The writer appeared to joke about the idea of a pavilion for Russia or Ukraine coming to EPCOT: This story was published on March 8, 1992. (Courtesy: The San Francisco Examiner)While Russia and Ukraine do not have pavilions in EPCOT, the website for Walt Disney World Resort lists the 11 countries that do. They include Mexico, Norway, China, Germany, Italy, the United States, Japan, Morocco, France, the United Kingdom, and Canada:According to the Disney bloggers known as The Mouselets, EPCOT once announced pavilions for Spain, Israel, and Equatorial Africa. However, those plans never came to fruition. The Germany pavilion at the World Showcase at EPCOT. (Courtesy: Darcy/Flickr)On Feb. 25, right after Russia began its invasion of Ukraine, Disney's Voices of Liberty appeared to sing a song for Ukraine in EPCOT's America Gardens Theatre. The tune was "Let There Be Peace On Earth." The post included the hashtag, "#prayforukraine":In sum, the rumor about a Ukraine pavilion coming to EPCOT's World Showcase originated from a satirical website. It's unclear what countries might be added in the future to the Disney World property.

FMD_train_1910

Did 'The Simpsons' Predict the Smartwatch?

12/02/2019

On March 19, 1995, an episode of "The Simpsons" entitled "Lisa's Wedding" took a futuristic view of Springfield's favorite family after Homer's daughter visited a fortuneteller's booth. At one point in the episode, Lisa's future husband, Hugh Parkfield, voiced by actor Mandy Patinkin, bent over and spoke into a strange-looking device on his wrist: a half flip phone, half wristwatch that most modern viewers would liken to a smartwatch. This animated gadget can be glimpsed at the 2:58 mark of this video about similar Simpsons "predictions." (You can read our coverage on "Simpsons" predictions here.) video "Simpsons" predictions here This is a genuine clip from a 1995 episode of "The Simpsons." It is also true that this episode aired more than 20 years before the "Year of the Smartwatch" in 2014, when these devices became relatively common. However, "The Simpsons" shouldn't get credit for "predicting" the smartwatch for two reasons: Year of the Smartwatch It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when the first smartwatch was produced, because it depends on the criteria you use to classify one. The first digital watches were produced in the 1970s. In 1983, the Seiko Data-2000 featured a built-in keyboard for data input. A few years later, Sinclair made a watch with an FM radio, and in 1994 Seiko unveiled a watch that doubled as a pager. The Timex Datalink, which was also introduced in 1994, is a good contender for the first "modern" smartwatch because it had the ability to transfer data by linking to a computer. smartwatch produced The point is that the road to the modern smartwatch has been a long and winding one that predated this episode of "The Simpsons." In addition to these early entries into the smartwatch market, the idea of a smartwatch can be traced back even further. Special agent James Bond, for instance, has a long history of using watch gadgets to aid his spy craft. In 1973's "Live and Let Die," Bond's watch was equipped with a circular saw and a magnet. In 1977's "The Spy Who Loved Me," Bond used his watch to print out tiny messages. In 1995's "Golden Eye," Bond's watch was equipped with a laser. James Bond And Bond wasn't the only fictional character to use a dual-purpose watch. Fred Flintstone once communicated via a radio watch, as did members of "The Jetsons." Detective Dick Tracy also used a radio watch in a 1946 comic strip, and who could forget Penny's watch in "Inspector Gadget?" fictional character 1946 comic strip In sum, "The Simpsons" didn't predict the smartwatch. While this episode of "The Simpsons" is real and truly predated the "Year of the Smartwatch" in 2014, this was not the first time a smartwatch appeared in a movie, comic strip, or television show. Furthermore, the evolution of the smartwatch was well underway by the time this episode aired in 1994. You can read more about The Simpsons alleged predictions in the Snopes collection The Simpsons Didnt Predict That. The Simpsons Didnt Predict That Blakemore, Erin. "How Dick Tracy Invented the Smartwatch." Smithsonian Magazine. 9 March 2015. Osborn, Jacob. "A Complete List of All James Bond 007 Watches." Man of Many. 18 October 2019. Lamkin, Paul. "Smartwatch Timeline: The Devices That Paved the Way for the Apple Watch." Wareable. 10 March 2015. Thompson, Joe. "A Concise History of the Smartwatch." Bloomberg. 8 January 2018. Hamblen, Matt. "Is 2014 the Year of the Smartwatch?" PC World. 28 December 2013. King, Rachel. "Before They Were Stars: Smartwatches in Pop Culture." ZDnet. 6 March 2015.

False

This animated gadget can be glimpsed at the 2:58 mark of this video about similar Simpsons "predictions." (You can read our coverage on "Simpsons" predictions here.)This is a genuine clip from a 1995 episode of "The Simpsons." It is also true that this episode aired more than 20 years before the "Year of the Smartwatch" in 2014, when these devices became relatively common. However, "The Simpsons" shouldn't get credit for "predicting" the smartwatch for two reasons:It's difficult to pinpoint exactly when the first smartwatch was produced, because it depends on the criteria you use to classify one. The first digital watches were produced in the 1970s. In 1983, the Seiko Data-2000 featured a built-in keyboard for data input. A few years later, Sinclair made a watch with an FM radio, and in 1994 Seiko unveiled a watch that doubled as a pager. The Timex Datalink, which was also introduced in 1994, is a good contender for the first "modern" smartwatch because it had the ability to transfer data by linking to a computer. In addition to these early entries into the smartwatch market, the idea of a smartwatch can be traced back even further. Special agent James Bond, for instance, has a long history of using watch gadgets to aid his spy craft. In 1973's "Live and Let Die," Bond's watch was equipped with a circular saw and a magnet. In 1977's "The Spy Who Loved Me," Bond used his watch to print out tiny messages. In 1995's "Golden Eye," Bond's watch was equipped with a laser. And Bond wasn't the only fictional character to use a dual-purpose watch. Fred Flintstone once communicated via a radio watch, as did members of "The Jetsons." Detective Dick Tracy also used a radio watch in a 1946 comic strip, and who could forget Penny's watch in "Inspector Gadget?"You can read more about The Simpsons alleged predictions in the Snopes collection The Simpsons Didnt Predict That.

FMD_train_755

Poll to Legalize Marijuana

04/30/2009

Claim: President Obama will legalize marijuana if one million people call a designated phone number. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, April 2009] Comment: I got a text message this morning saying that Obama would legalize marijuana if it had 1 million supporters. We are supposed to call a phone number to record a vote - phone number 973.409.3274 and press pound - haven't done it, just wanted to check first. Origins: With good reason, many people are now wary that any unsolicited e-mail or text message urging them to call an unfamiliar phone number is some form of hoax or scam. The message reproduced above, claiming that President Obama will legalize marijuana if one million supportive phone calls areplaced to a designated number, is an example of such wariness many people who have received it are skeptical that it's on the level. Although the message isn't quite literally true, neither is it really a hoax or a scam. scam The phone number 973-409-3274 is one of many operated by Humor Hotlines, the company that offers such novelty services as the "Rejection Hotline," the "Bad Breath Notification Number," and "The Pissed Off Poet." This particular number connects callers Humor Hotlines to the "Marijuana Legalization Endorsement Line," which plays a 30-second recorded message about controversies regarding the legalization of marijuana and then urges the caller to press the pound key (#) if he or she supports the concept of "legalizing marijuana to help save the economy." The recording states that once a million endorsements have been received, a proposal for the legalization of marijuana will be presented to President Obama and the U.S. Congress. As far as we have been able to ascertain, the Marijuana Legalization Endorsement Line is not a "scam" in the sense that calling it does not result in hidden or exorbitant fees being charged to the caller's bill. It isn't true that "Obama will legalize marijuana" if the number collects one million supporters, though; merely that a proposal for such will supposedly be created and presented if the phone number records one million positive responses. We note, however, that this phone poll has no more power to affect anything than any other public petition does, and there are no guarantees that the President or Congress would even see the resultant proposal, As well, President Obama does not have the authority to single-handedly legalize marijuana throughout the United States; such an act would require the overturning of a variety of state and federal laws. Last updated: 5 May 2009

False

Origins: With good reason, many people are now wary that any unsolicited e-mail or text message urging them to call an unfamiliar phone number is some form of hoax or scam. The message reproduced above, claiming that President Obama will legalize marijuana if one million supportive phone calls areplaced to a designated number, is an example of such wariness many people who have received it are skeptical that it's on the level. Although the message isn't quite literally true, neither is it really a hoax or a scam.The phone number 973-409-3274 is one of many operated by Humor Hotlines, the company that offers such novelty services as the "Rejection Hotline," the "Bad Breath Notification Number," and "The Pissed Off Poet." This particular number connects callers

FMD_train_1856

How have the financial assets of Presidents evolved over time?

12/28/2017

An image comparing changes in the financial status of former and current United States presidents was widely shared on social media at the end of 2017, with minimal text suggesting that the data it presented was particularly revealing of something (without providing any detail about what that "something" might be). As for the hard data, we won't dwell on precise numbers because net worth figures are typically estimates that are at least partially based on assets with fluctuating valuations, and federal election disclosure laws have only required that candidates list their assets and liabilities in ranges rather than specific amounts. However, in general, we can note that the information in the image is at least within the ballpark of reasonableness. The Clintons' net worth was reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016. As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit. The comparison in this image is one of apples and oranges, however, and therefore it reveals nothing remarkable or surprising. It contrasts two men who each served eight years as President and are no longer in office with one man who has only been the U.S. chief executive for a year and still occupies that position. The longer one holds high office, the more opportunity one has to establish connections and build experience that might prove financially lucrative later on, so obviously, two men who sat in the White House for eight years each have a considerable advantage over the one who has barely been in Washington for a year. More importantly, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are ex-presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents—writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians—that are simply not available to a sitting president. For the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they are serving as public officials. Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office. This image also conveniently omits data that demonstrates the money-making proclivities of former presidents to be neither an aberration nor an activity limited to Democrats: George H.W. Bush saw his fortune grow from $4 million in his pre-presidential days to $23 million in 2017, and his son, George W. Bush, began his presidency with $20 million and is now reportedly worth $35 million. Finally, nothing about this subject has anything to do with any presidents, current or former, "stealing" anyone's money. Whatever controversies may have surrounded Presidents Clinton, Obama, and Trump so far, none of them has been accused of enriching themselves by looting the public treasury.

NEI

The Clintons' net worth was as reported as $700,000 in their 1992 statement, the Obamas' net worth was estimated at about $1.3 million in 2007 (mostly derived from book publishing advances and royalties), while the Trumps' net worth was pegged at $3.7 billion in 2016.As of 2017, the Clintons were estimated to have made $240 million since Bill Clinton left office in 2001, the Obamas' combined net worth was reckoned to be about $24 million, while the Trumps' net worth was thought to have dropped to about $3.1 billion. Suffice it to say that the Clinton and Obama families have done very well for themselves since leaving the White House, but the Trumps have realized no similar windfall (and have possibly seen their overall wealth decline a bit).More important, though, is that former Presidents Clinton and Obama are former presidents who have returned to private life, and thus they can avail themselves of many money-making opportunities common to ex-presidents -- writing books, giving speeches, consulting for private companies, holding board seats, advising businessmen and politicians -- that are simply not available to a sitting president. But for the incumbent chief executive, the position of President of the United States affords its holder little time to manage any outside business interests, and conflict of interest laws make it difficult for presidents to engage in profitable business ventures while they're serving as public officials. (Most sitting presidents choose to put their business interests into blind trusts or otherwise delegate their day-to-day management to others during their terms of office.)

FMD_train_420

John Lewis managed to evade paying property taxes on his Washington, D.C. townhouse.

01/19/2017

On 18 January 2017, web site GotNews posted an article reporting that U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who is perhaps most famous for participating in the Civil Rights Movement at the side of Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't pay property taxes on a $1 million townhouse located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C.: article Trump-hating Democratic Georgia congressman John Lewis didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse on Capitol Hill, despite being in Congress for decades, where the salary for a Representative starts at $174,000 per year. Lewis was in the news recently for saying he doesnt see President-elect Donald J. Trump as a legitimate president because of the #RussianHackers Democratic conspiracy theory. The article displayed a table showing annual property tax payments for the home in question and a legal notice from 2010 alerting Lewis of a court action against him (the case was later dismissed). It's unclear how this table supposedly documents that Lewis "didnt pay property taxes on his nearly $1 million fancy Washington, D.C. townhouse," given that it lists tax payments due on the property for each of the last several years and shows nothing owing other than the most recent payment (for the last half of 2016): Moreover, a different view from the same D.C. Office of Tax and Revenue web site shows that the taxes on Lewis' property have indeed been collected, as due, for each of the last several years: We contacted Lewis's spokeswoman, Brenda Jones, who told us that he bought the home years before property values soared, that he still owns it, and that he is not behind on his taxes: He pays property taxes annually, just as all homeowners in DC do, and his taxes are paid and up to date. Any report that he avoids paying taxes grasps at straws and is a desperate and unnecessary attempt to tarnish his credibility, instead of debating the substance of issues he has raised. Neither the home in question, nor any properties under Lewis' name, appearedon a database search of properties seized and placed on sale for failure to pay property taxes. database A second item of alleged proof offered by GotNews.com was a 2010 "notice of pendency of action," a legal notice ofcourt actions relating to real property. The document appears to be a notice of a foreclosure hearing. That case, however, was dismissed on 11 February 2011: notice According to current public records available as of 19 January 2017, Lewis still owns the property, confirming that the case was dropped. It was purchased in 1988 (for an unknown price) and is currently valued at $865,790. An explanation offered by Lewis's office states that in 2010 he nearly lost his home to foreclosure but was able to stop the process: explanation Rep. Lewiss Washington, DC property was purchased decades ago for a fraction of its current value today. As most Washingtonians and any real property expert know, property values in the city have risen exponentially in the last 10 to15 years. Rep. Lewis is delighted that he made a wise investment years ago, and that his propertys value has skyrocketed. He also realizes he likely could not afford to purchase his own home were he seeking to buy it today. In 2010, he was subjected to attempts to foreclose upon his home, like many Americans during that period. He is fortunate that he was able to stop that process, though many Americans, including many hundreds of his constituents, were not as successful. His property taxes are paid and currently up to date. GotNews. "Trump-Hating Democratic @RepJohnLewis DIDNT PAY TAXES On His Nearly $1 Million Fancy DC Townhouse." 18 January 2017. Seipel, Brooke."Rep. John Lewis: Trump Isn't a 'Legitimate President.'" The Hill.13 January 2017. Wootson, Cleve R. "In Feud With John Lewis, Donald Trump Attacked 'One of the Most Respected People in America.'" The Washington Post.15 January 2017.

NEI

On 18 January 2017, web site GotNews posted an article reporting that U.S. Rep. John Lewis, a Georgia Democrat who is perhaps most famous for participating in the Civil Rights Movement at the side of Martin Luther King, Jr., didn't pay property taxes on a $1 million townhouse located in the Capitol Hill neighborhood of Washington, D.C.:Neither the home in question, nor any properties under Lewis' name, appearedon a database search of properties seized and placed on sale for failure to pay property taxes.A second item of alleged proof offered by GotNews.com was a 2010 "notice of pendency of action," a legal notice ofcourt actions relating to real property. The document appears to be a notice of a foreclosure hearing. That case, however, was dismissed on 11 February 2011:An explanation offered by Lewis's office states that in 2010 he nearly lost his home to foreclosure but was able to stop the process:

FMD_train_328

US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%.

01/07/2014

President Barack Obama and his allies have increasingly focused on income inequality as a top policy challenge for 2014. A recent tweet by Ian Bremmer, a leading expert on the intersection between international relations and finance, seemed to provide some fuel for Obamas concern. Bremmer is the president and founder of the Eurasia Group, an international research and consulting firm, as well as a global research professor at New York University. On Jan. 4, 2014, hetweeted, US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%. We thought wed take a closer look at Bremmers numbers. We struck paydirt when we looked at the most recent data compiled by Emmanuel Saez, an economist at the University of California who has spent years studying inequality, most often with Thomas Piketty, a French economist. In his paper,Saezfound that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percents incomes grew by 31.4 percent while the bottom 99 percents incomes grew by 0.4 percent -- the same numbers Bremer had tweeted. This means, according to Saezs paper, that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery. So Bremmer can point to solid sourcing for his claim. However, not everyone is enamored of the Piketty-Saez approach. Alan Reynolds, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, haswrittenthat the Piketty-Saez methodology tends to exaggerate the earnings of the top 1 percent and underestimate the earnings of the bottom 99 percent. The Piketty-Saez method uses pre-tax income and includes realized capital gains. This effectively boosts the measured income of the richest Americans, since they earn a lot of capital gains and they pay a lot of taxes. Meanwhile, for the 99 percent, the Piketty-Saez method excludes transfer income -- that is, payments from the government to individuals, including such items as Social Security, unemployment insurance, Medicaid and food stamps. Reynoldsestimatedthat such transfer payments accounted for more than 16 percent of personal income in 2009. Transfer payments, he wrote, totaled $2.3 trillion in 2012. Also, Reynolds argues that way the Piketty-Saez numbers are calculated makes them subject to short-term fluctuations based on taxes. He suggests that the prospect of higher taxes in 2013 may have led to a surge of bonuses and cashing out of investments that would be subject to capital gains taxes -- something that also happened in 1992 and 1986. If true, this tendency would magnify an otherwise minor error in how Bremmer phrased his tweet. Bremmer tweeted that the figures covered the period 2009 to 2013; in fact, the Saez data, covers 2009 to 2012. The 2013 data are not available yet -- but they could look different due to the timing issue. (Bremmer told PolitiFact that he'd meant to communicate that the data went from 2009 to the start of 2013, but that could have been expressed more clearly.) In the meantime, one could easily produce a more nuanced narrative than the familiar rich-get-richer story. Consider this table published in themost recent Saez paper: Time period Average real growth in income Real income growth for top 1 percent Real income growth for bottom 99 percent Fraction of total growth (or loss) captured by top 1 percent Full period, 1993-2012 17.9 percent 86.1 percent 6.6 percent 68 percent Clinton Expansion, 1993-2000 31.5 percent 98.7 percent 20.3 percent 45 percent 2001 Recession, 2000-2002 -11.7 percent -30.8 percent -6.5 percent 57 percent (of losses) Bush Expansion, 2002-2007 16.1 percent 61.8 percent 6.8 percent 65 percent Great Recession 2007-2009 -17.4 percent -36.3 percent -11.6 percent 49 percent (of losses) Recovery, 2009-2012 6.0 percent 31.4 percent 0.4 percent 95 percent This table -- Saezs own data -- shows that the top 1 percent saw its inflation-adjusted income drop by 36.3 percent during the great recession, then recover by only 31.4 percent. In other words, the top 1 percent actually had a net loss between 2007 and 2012 -- a more modest net loss than the one suffered by the bottom 99 percent, to be sure, but a decline that muddies the easy story line. Even a scholar whos sympathetic to the Piketty-Saez approach acknowledges that its not the only way to look at the numbers. If you want the distribution of market income produced by the economy and as reported for income taxes, the Piketty-Saez numbers are the right numbers, said Timothy M. Smeeding, director of the Institute for Research on Poverty at the University of Wisconsin. But if you want to gauge the effect of government programs on the income distribution, especially for the poor or middle classes, the outcome is different and cannot be measured by Piketty-Saez number. Smeeding says that the degree of inequality is eased a bit once you take into account taxes and benefits. Still, he said, the top 1 percent still gets a bigger share, just not as big as the Piketty-Saez numbers show. Our ruling Bremmer tweeted that in the United States, the top 1 percent of earners saw their income increase by 31.4 percent between 2009 and 2013, compared to 0.4 percent for the bottom 99 percent.He took those numbers from the respected, long-running analysis of income inequality by Piketty and Saez, but this research is not the only way to look at the question. Taking into account taxes and transfer payments would reduce -- though likely not eliminate -- the difference in income gains between the 1 percent and the 99 percent. In addition, Bremmer acknowledged that his phrasing about the time frame for the data could have been clearer. His statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

True

Bremmer is the president and founder of the Eurasia Group, an international research and consulting firm, as well as a global research professor at New York University. On Jan. 4, 2014, hetweeted, US: Change in Income, 2009-13. Top 1%: +31.4%. Bottom 99%: +0.4%.In his paper,Saezfound that between 2009 and 2012, the top 1 percents incomes grew by 31.4 percent while the bottom 99 percents incomes grew by 0.4 percent -- the same numbers Bremer had tweeted. This means, according to Saezs paper, that the top 1 percent captured 95 percent of the income gains in the first three years of the recovery.Alan Reynolds, a scholar with the libertarian Cato Institute, haswrittenthat the Piketty-Saez methodology tends to exaggerate the earnings of the top 1 percent and underestimate the earnings of the bottom 99 percent.Reynoldsestimatedthat such transfer payments accounted for more than 16 percent of personal income in 2009. Transfer payments, he wrote, totaled $2.3 trillion in 2012.In the meantime, one could easily produce a more nuanced narrative than the familiar rich-get-richer story. Consider this table published in themost recent Saez paper:

FMD_train_718

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

05/14/2020

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

True

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

FMD_train_895

In the 2014 election, 80 percentofpoor people did not vote.

04/24/2016

Income inequality is the core issue of Bernie Sanders presidential campaign, and he said it may also be why hes behind Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary. Meet the Presshost Chuck Todd asked Sanders why he thought 16 of 17 states with large wealth gaps were won by Clinton. Well, because poor people dont vote. I mean, thats just a fact,Sanders said. Thats a sad reality of American society. And thats why we have to transform one, as you know, one of thelowest voter turnouts of any major society of Earth. We have done a good job of bringing young people. But in America today, the last election in 2014, 80 percent of poor people did not vote. Is turnout among the poor really that low? The data shows that weve done slightly better at getting out the vote among low-income people than what Sanders suggests, but not by much. Sanders policy director Warren Gunnels pointed us to areportby the left-leaning policy and advocacy group Demos, which useddatafrom the Census Bureau. According to Demos, only one in four of those earning less than $10,000 voted in 2014, Gunnels said. Even worse, the turnout was just 12 percent among 18- to 24-year-olds earning less than $30,000. In other words, roughly 75 percent of people in the lowest income bracket didnt vote in the last midterm elections. However, theres one catch to this figure. While an annual income of less than $10,000 is undoubtedly poor, thepoverty threshold in 2014also includes family incomes above $10,000. Sean McElwee, a policy analyst with Demos who authored the report, told us to look at annual incomes under $30,000 instead. The turnout rate for that group was31.5 percent, which means 68.5 percent of poor people didnt vote in 2014, about 10 percentage points less than what Sanders said. Sanders is indeed correct to highlight low turnout among the poor as an important factor that biases policy in favor of the wealthy, McElwee said. As PolitiFact hasreported, census data may overstate the turnout rates, as its based on self-reporting. So its possible that Sanders 80 percent figure is closer to actual rates than what the survey shows, but this is speculative. Sanders is more on target if we look at a definition of poor that is not based on income. A 2015 Pew Centersurveylooked at the politics of financial security, which analysts defined as having a credit card, a savings or checking account, and a retirement or investment plan; not needing to borrow money; not falling behind on bills, rent or mortgage payments; and not receiving food assistance or Medicaid benefits. The survey found that just 20 percent of the least financially secure were likely voters in 2014 compared to 69 percent of the most financially secure. Turnout always drops in midterm elections, when the White House isnt at stake, and overall turnout in 2014 was the worst it had been in72 years. Nonetheless, census data shows turnout is consistently lower among the poor than other income groups: So why are the poor less likely to vote? The reasons are interconnected, if not unsurprising. For one, the political process sets hurdles for the poor. Registration barriers are key, said McElwee of Demos, pointing to census data that shows that low-income people are far less likely to be registered voters. Voter ID laws, for example, impose costs that people struggling to make ends meet cant really afford. The Government Accountability Officereportedin 2014 that a drivers license can cost between $5 to $58.50 in states with voter ID laws. And nearly 500,000 eligible voters dont have convenient access to an ID-issuing office, according to a2012 studyby New York University. The poor also make up 55 percent of people who cant vote (which include felons and immigrants as well as residents of Washington D.C., and U.S. territories), according to a 2013 Harvard Universityworking paper. This means that they can't vote but also they won't be mobilized by parties, who base their mobilization off of voter files, McElwee said. Being poor also means you cannot afford to devote time to the political process. The Pew study found that just 26 percent of the least financially secure knew which party controlled Congress compared to 62 percent of the most affluent. Similarly, compared to affluent non-voters, low-income non-voters were more likely to list disinterest, forgetting to vote, health and issues of access as reasons why they didnt vote, according tocensus data. They often have inflexible jobs, have limited transportation options to get to the polls, and/or insufficient knowledge about democracy and the choices they face, said Zoltan Hajnal, a political science professor at the University of California, San Diego. The poor also often lack efficacy and dont feel like their votes count as much. Our ruling Sanders said, In 2014, 80 percent of poor people did not vote. The figure is a bit high if we look at turnout by income. In 2014, about 75 percent of people who made under $10,000 and about 69 percent of those who made under $30,000 didnt vote. If we look at financial insecurity, however, Sanders is right on the money. We rate his claim Mostly True.

True

Well, because poor people dont vote. I mean, thats just a fact,Sanders said. Thats a sad reality of American society. And thats why we have to transform one, as you know, one of thelowest voter turnouts of any major society of Earth. We have done a good job of bringing young people. But in America today, the last election in 2014, 80 percent of poor people did not vote.Sanders policy director Warren Gunnels pointed us to areportby the left-leaning policy and advocacy group Demos, which useddatafrom the Census Bureau.However, theres one catch to this figure. While an annual income of less than $10,000 is undoubtedly poor, thepoverty threshold in 2014also includes family incomes above $10,000.Sean McElwee, a policy analyst with Demos who authored the report, told us to look at annual incomes under $30,000 instead. The turnout rate for that group was31.5 percent, which means 68.5 percent of poor people didnt vote in 2014, about 10 percentage points less than what Sanders said.As PolitiFact hasreported, census data may overstate the turnout rates, as its based on self-reporting. So its possible that Sanders 80 percent figure is closer to actual rates than what the survey shows, but this is speculative.A 2015 Pew Centersurveylooked at the politics of financial security, which analysts defined as having a credit card, a savings or checking account, and a retirement or investment plan; not needing to borrow money; not falling behind on bills, rent or mortgage payments; and not receiving food assistance or Medicaid benefits.Turnout always drops in midterm elections, when the White House isnt at stake, and overall turnout in 2014 was the worst it had been in72 years. Nonetheless, census data shows turnout is consistently lower among the poor than other income groups:Voter ID laws, for example, impose costs that people struggling to make ends meet cant really afford. The Government Accountability Officereportedin 2014 that a drivers license can cost between $5 to $58.50 in states with voter ID laws. And nearly 500,000 eligible voters dont have convenient access to an ID-issuing office, according to a2012 studyby New York University.The poor also make up 55 percent of people who cant vote (which include felons and immigrants as well as residents of Washington D.C., and U.S. territories), according to a 2013 Harvard Universityworking paper.The Pew study found that just 26 percent of the least financially secure knew which party controlled Congress compared to 62 percent of the most affluent. Similarly, compared to affluent non-voters, low-income non-voters were more likely to list disinterest, forgetting to vote, health and issues of access as reasons why they didnt vote, according tocensus data.

FMD_train_34

When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months.

08/30/2012

In the contest for the hearts and minds of voters, Democrats have been claiming that the economy is truly improving, while Republicans assert that they can make the anemic recovery even more robust. During the online-only portion of the Aug. 28 Providence Journal-WPRI debate among Democrats David Cicilline and Anthony Gemma, both running in the 1st Congressional District, incumbent Cicilline was asked how he would tackle the massive national debt. Cicilline stated that, in addition to cutting spending and closing loopholes in the tax system, the pace of job creation needs to increase. "When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months," he said. We've heard a lot of chatter about the job numbers and whether they truly indicate a recovery, so we decided to look further. First, let's examine what the employment situation was like when Obama took office. Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in January 2009, when the president was sworn in, the country lost 818,000 jobs. (The numbers do not include farm workers and are adjusted for seasonal shifts in employment, but that's the standard way of calculating employment and unemployment rates.) That's 17 percent more than the 700,000 jobs Cicilline cited. (To put the numbers in perspective, the losses for the first three full months that Obama was in office averaged 738,000 per month. The average job loss for the last three full months of the Bush administration was 651,000.) When it comes to the number of months in which the United States has had job growth, Cicilline's timeframe was also somewhat off. BLS data show that the last time the United States lost jobs was in September 2010, when 27,000 jobs were lost. That's 22 months ago, not 24. How significant have the increases been? Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institution, told PolitiFact National in May that the economy needs to create 90,000 to 100,000 jobs each month just to keep pace with the number of people entering the workforce. During 7 of those 22 months, including as recently as April, May, and June of this year, job growth was below 100,000. In 8 of the 22 months, it was over 200,000. When we asked his campaign for the source of Cicilline's statement, spokeswoman Nicole Kayner sent us a White House blog item from Aug. 3 reporting: "The economy has now added private sector jobs for 29 straight months." We confirmed that with the BLS database, but this is for non-government jobs, and Cicilline didn't make that distinction in his debate comment. Our ruling: In the debate, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline said, "When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months." We want to note, as we have repeatedly, that even though there's been improvement in the job numbers during the Obama administration, a president's ability to influence the economy is severely limited. As for Cicilline's comment, he understated the job losses occurring when President Obama took office and, by the most commonly used measure, he overstated by two months the timespan of continued job growth. However, his main point—that there has been growth for nearly two years—is sound. Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule it Mostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter: @politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)

True

In the contest for the hearts and minds of voters, Democrats have been claiming that the economy is really improving and the Republicans have been saying they can make the anemic recovery even more robust.During theonline-onlyportion of the Aug. 28 Providence Journal-WPRI debate among Democrats David Cicilline and Anthony Gemma, both running in the 1st Congressional District, incumbent Cicilline was asked how he would tackle the massive national debt.Cicilline said that in addition to cutting spending and closing loopholes in the tax system, the pace of job creation needs to increase.When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months, he said.We've heard a lot of chatter about the job numbers and whether they really indicate a recovery, so we decided to look further.First, a look at what the employment situation was like when Obama took office.Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics show that in January 2009, when the president was sworn in, the country lost 818,000 jobs. (The numbers do not include farm workers and are adjusted for seasonal shifts in employment, but that's the standard way of calculating employment and unemployment rates.)That's 17 percent more than the 700,000 jobs Cicilline cited.(To put the numbers in perspective, the losses for the first three full months that Obama was in office averaged 738,000 per month. The average job loss for the last three full months of the Bush administration was 651,000.)When it comes to thenumber of monthsin which the United States has had job growth, Cicilline's timeframe was also somewhat off.BLS datashow that the last time the United States lost jobs was in September 2010, when 27,000 jobs were lost.That's 22 months ago, not 24.How significant have the increases been?Gary Burtless, a labor economist at the Brookings Institutiontold PolitiFact Nationalin May that the economy needs to create 90,000 to 100,000 jobs each month just to keep pace with the number of people coming into the work force.During 7 of those 22 months, including as recently as April, May and June of this year, job growth was below 100,000. In 8 of the 22 months, it was over 200,000.When we asked his campaign for the source of Cicilline's statement, spokeswoman Nicole Kayner sent usa White House blog itemfrom Aug. 3 reporting: The economy has now added private sector jobs for 29 straight months. We confirmed that with the BLS database, but this is for non-government jobs, and Cicilline didn't make that distinction in his debate comment.Our rulingIn the debate, U.S. Rep. David Cicilline said: When President Obama took office, we were losing 700,000 jobs a month. Now we've had job growth, I think, for 24 consecutive months.We want to note, as we repeatedly have, that even though there's been improvement in the job numbers during the Obama administration, a president's ability to influence the economy is severely limited.As for Cicillines comment, he understated the job losses occurring when President Obama took office and, by the most commonly used measure, he overstated by two months the timespan of continued job growth. But his main point -- that there has been growth for nearly two years -- is sound.Because the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rule itMostly True.(Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.)

FMD_train_912

Dr. Walter Williams - No Matter What

04/26/2011

Claim: Dr. Walter Williams penned an opinion piece entitled "No Matter What," about President Obama'a inevitable re-election. INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2011] No Matter WhatBy Dr. Walter Williams Can President Obama be defeated in 2012? No. He can't. I am going on record as saying that President Barak Obama will win a second term. The media won't tell you this because a good election campaign means hundreds of millions (or in Obama's case billions) of dollars to them in advertising. But the truth is, there simply are no conditions under which Barak Obama can be defeated in 2012. The quality of the Republican candidate doesn't matter. Obama gets reelected. Nine percent unemployment? No problem. Obama will win. Gas prices moving toward five dollars a gallon? He still wins. The economy soars or goes into the gutter. Obama wins. War in the Middle East? He wins a second term. America's role as the leading Superpower disappears? Hurrah for Barak Obama! The U.S. government rushes toward bankruptcy, the dollar continues to sink on world markets and the price of daily goods and services soars due to inflation fueled by Obama's extraordinary deficit spending? Obama wins handily. You are crazy Williams. Don't you understand how volatile politics can be when overall economic, government, and world conditions are declining? Sure I do. And that's why I know Obama will win. The American people are notoriously ignorant of economics. And economics is the key to why Obama should be defeated. Even when Obama's policies lead the nation to final ruin, the majority of the American people are going to believe the bait-and-switch tactics Obama and his supporters in the media will use to explain why it isn't his fault. After all, things were much worse than understood when he took office. Obama's reelection is really a very, very simple math problem. Consider the following: 1) Blacks will vote for Obama blindly. Period. Doesn't matter what he does. It's a race thing. He's one of us, 2) College educated women will vote for Obama. Though they will be offended by this, they swoon at his oratory. It's really not more complex than that, 3) Liberals will vote for Obama. He is their great hope, 4) Democrats will vote for Obama. He is the leader of their party and his coattails will carry them to victory nationwide, 5) Hispanics will vote for Obama. He is the path to citizenship for those who are illegal and Hispanic leaders recognize the political clout they carry in the Democratic Party, 6) Union members will vote overwhelmingly for Obama. He is their key to money and power in business, state and local politics, 7) Big Business will support Obama. They already have. He has almost $1 Billion dollars in his reelection purse gained largely from his connections with Big Business and is gaining more everyday. Big Business loves Obama because he gives them access to taxpayer money so long as they support his social and political agenda, 8) The media love him. They may attack the people who work for him, but they love him. After all, to not love him would be racist, 9) Most other minorities and special interest groups will vote for him. Oddly, the overwhelming majority of Jews and Muslims will support him because they won't vote Republican. American Indians will support him. Obviously homosexuals tend to vote Democratic. And lastly, 10) Approximately half of independents will vote for Obama. And he doesn't need anywhere near that number because he has all of the groups previously mentioned. The President will win an overwhelming victory in 2012. - Dr. Walter Williams Origins: Dr. Walter Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics since 1980. However, he is not the author of the "No Matter What" opinion piece reproduced above, as noted in a disclaimer from RiteOn.org posted on the GMU web site: Walter Williams disclaimer We published an article that we thought was written by him and we have subsequently found out it was not. The title of the article we published was "No Matter What" and it was published on April 1. Please be informed that this article was mistakenly attributed to Dr Williams. We admire Dr. Williams work and the article we published was not written by him and was, in fact, a "phony" that fooled us also. We hope, by way of this explanation, to inform those who took the article as genuine to know that it was bogus and that Dr Williams had nothing to do with the writing of the article entitled "No Matter What" that appeared under the column entitled "A Bad Dream" published on the RiteOn web site on April 1. We erred in not researching the real source of the article prior to publication and we erred in publishing it. We try within our means to avoid publishing phony material of the sort represented by this article and we are sorry we failed to catch the mistake prior to publication. Chuck MacNab, Editor and Publisher, RiteOn.org Last updated: 26 April 2011

False

Origins: Dr. Walter Williams has served on the faculty of George Mason University (GMU) in Fairfax, Virginia, as John M. Olin Distinguished Professor of Economics since 1980. However, he is not the author of the "No Matter What" opinion piece reproduced above, as noted in a disclaimer from RiteOn.org posted on the GMU web site:

FMD_train_1291

The U.S. unemployment rate has been massaged, its been doctored.

01/26/2015

Former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, who plans to say this spring if hell again seek the Republican presidential nomination, questioned the validity of federal unemployment statistics as he otherwise extolled the boom in his home state, according to a reporter in attendance. In a tweet, Dave Weigel of Bloomberg Politics quoted Perry saying during a Jan. 26, 2015, breakfast event with Jewish voters in Des Moines that the official unemployment rate is unreliable: Its been massaged, its been doctored, Weigel quoted Perry saying. By phone, Weigel told us Perry made his remark while celebrating his states economy and did not take reporter questions. At our request, Weigel later emailed us his fuller transcript showing Perry said: We've got the lowest participation rate since the late 1970s when Jimmy Carter was president. I'm talking about participation in the work force. That's of really great concern for me. Perry continued: I mean, who is it standing up for these people that I call the uncounted? They've lost hope that they can even get a job, so they're not even counted. When you look at the unemployment rate today, that's not the true unemployment rate, it's been massaged, it's been doctored, Perry said. The U.S. unemployment rate was 5.6 percentin December 2014, down from as much as 10 percent in 2009, Democrat Barack Obamas first year as president.The Texas jobless ratewas 4.6 percent, the states lowest since May 2008. Indeed, on Jan. 15, 2015, in his last speech to Texas legislators as governor, Perrysaluted the statesjob gains, also noting the Texas jobless rate was significantly below the national average. So we were curious what he meant about the rate being doctored and asked Perry aides to elaborate--without success. Jobless rate an imperfect indicator Nationally, the persistence of discouraged workers and declining workforce participation often come up as criticisms of the jobless rate. Perrys mention of the official jobless rate leaving out discouraged workers was accurate. After Obamas latest State of the Union address, PolitiFact rated Mostly True the Democratic leaders declaration the unemployment rate was the lowest it had been since before the financial crisis that blew up around the time of his 2008 election. Still, that fact check noted Obama was citing the most basic version of the unemployment rate,which draws on regular surveys of households that originated in 1940. Another version of the rate, known as U-6, tries to capture a broader picture of labor-market weaknesses by accounting for people who are unemployed plus people working part-time who would rather have full-time work -- and people who have stopped looking for work but would begin to look again if labor-market conditions improved. By rolling in these additional factors, the U-6 rate tends to track the official unemployment rate but is usually a few points higher. And as it happens, the U-6 rate -- unlike the official unemployment rate -- hasnt returned to its pre-financial-crisis level. The national December 2014 U-6 rate was 11.2 percent, higher than the 11 percent rate in September 2008. This gets us to Perrys mention of labor force participation, which gauges the number of people in the labor force compared to the civilian, noninstitutionalized population. The labor force shrinks whenever someone retires, voluntarily gives up working (such as when they become a full-time parent or go back to school full-time) or because they simply give up on finding a job. Historically, workforce participation was down in the national recession at the end of Carters tenure and through the start of Ronald Reagans presidency,PolitiFact noted in 2012. More recently, the labor force participation rate has markedly decreased since 2008. In September 2008, it stood at 66 percent; it was nearly 63 percent as of December 2014, the most recent month of available data. So, the participation rate is lately at its lowest point since the late 1970s, which also was a time when fewer women had jobs outside the home. This decrease has partly been influenced by the aging of the workforce (as in Baby Boomer retirements). No signs of doctoring These wrinkles noted, is there evidence the jobless rate has been massaged and doctored, as Perry put it? We found none. In November 2013, after a manipulation charge bubbled up involving the Philadelphia region, the U.S. Census Bureau -- which conducts the Current Population Survey that gathers information from households later converted by the government to the unemployment rate --posted a statementsaying: We have no reason to believe that there was a systematic manipulation of the data described in media reports. As a statistical agency, the Census Bureau is very conscientious about our responsibility to produce accurate Current Population Survey data for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and all other surveys we conduct. The bureau referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Commerces Office of the Inspector General, whichsaid in May 2014 it had found no evidenceunemployment data had been manipulated in the months leading up to the November 2012 national election. That report also recommended some bureau reforms. None of several experts responding to our inquiries said the unemployment rate has been massaged or doctored. Among them,Andrew Biggsof the American Enterprise Institute told us the fact the regular jobless rate doesnt reflect discouraged job-seekers or part-timers wishing for full-time jobs isnt a deliberate government misrepresentation. Still, Biggs emailed, it means the unemployment rate doesnt deliver an accurate picture of the labor markets health. If labor force participation were the same today as prior to the recession, I believe the unemployment rate would be around 8.3%. So the idea that the labor market is really healthy today just isnt that true, he said. In 2013, economists told PolitiFact it would be extremely difficult to alter the unemployment rate. William Shobe, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Studies at the University of Virginia, said its important to remember there are many measures of unemployment, including privately produced surveys. And they all agree, within the margins of error, Shobe said. The immediate conclusion that you can draw from that is that no rogue interviewer or group of rogue interviewers have managed to budge the unemployment far (or at all, mind you) from the value it would have had otherwise. Shobe added that any effort to fudge the national numbers would require the participation of interviewers across the country. Otherwise you would see only a localized move which would wash out as noise in the national stats, he said. Shobe, reached afresh for this story, said he was unaware of developments that would support the former governors claim. The whole idea that you could get a group of these statisticians to lie about these survey results theyre collecting and have that stick, thats just crazy, Shobe said.These are career civil servants. Their incentives are to get the best possible numbers. Shobe suggested we query University of Wisconsin economistMenzie Chinnwho told us by email that he considers such critiques of the rate to be specious; Chinn pointed us to his October 2012blog posttaking to task a similar statement by business executive Jack Welch. Asked to assess Perrys comment in full, Chinn said: Its true that had the labor force participation rate not declined, and we used the number of employed actually observed to calculate a rate, then mechanically the unemployment rate would have to be higher. Regardless, he said, its not so that government statisticians changed the procedure for calculations in order to change the reported unemployment number which Chinn said is how he would define doctored. By phone,Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist, said nothing notable has occurred to demonstrate the unemployment rate has been doctored or massaged, though in August 2014, Princeton University economistAlan Kruegerand others wrotea paperpointing out fewer people are responding to the survey that feeds the rate. ANew York Timescolumnist, David Leonhardt,summarizedthe upshot as being a seeming increase in the number of people who once would have qualified as officially unemployed and today are considered out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work. Sinclair speculated by email that Perrys reference to discouraged workers being left out of the rate means hed prefer to see the rate calculated with the workers counted. But the words massaged and doctored, Sinclair said, each carries a charge, implying the rate is nefariously manipulated. We have no evidence of that, Sinclair said. Our ruling Addressing Iowans, Perry said the official U.S. jobless rate has been doctored, its been massaged. Theres legitimate debate about what statistic best measures the state of the workforce and even agreement that the widely quoted unemployment rate (which Perry stressed as meaningful about a week before this Iowa stop) doesnt provide the fullest picture of the labor force. But that's a far cry from showing the government is massaging or doctoring numbers, which implies organized underhanded wrongdoing. Perry may yet elaborate. We find this claim factually unsupported and ridiculous. Pants on Fire! PANTS ON FIRE The statement is not accurate and makes a ridiculous claim. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

False

In a tweet, Dave Weigel of Bloomberg Politics quoted Perry saying during a Jan. 26, 2015, breakfast event with Jewish voters in Des Moines that the official unemployment rate is unreliable: Its been massaged, its been doctored, Weigel quoted Perry saying.The U.S. unemployment rate was 5.6 percentin December 2014, down from as much as 10 percent in 2009, Democrat Barack Obamas first year as president.The Texas jobless ratewas 4.6 percent, the states lowest since May 2008. Indeed, on Jan. 15, 2015, in his last speech to Texas legislators as governor, Perrysaluted the statesjob gains, also noting the Texas jobless rate was significantly below the national average.Still, that fact check noted Obama was citing the most basic version of the unemployment rate,which draws on regular surveys of households that originated in 1940. Another version of the rate, known as U-6, tries to capture a broader picture of labor-market weaknesses by accounting for people who are unemployed plus people working part-time who would rather have full-time work -- and people who have stopped looking for work but would begin to look again if labor-market conditions improved. By rolling in these additional factors, the U-6 rate tends to track the official unemployment rate but is usually a few points higher.Historically, workforce participation was down in the national recession at the end of Carters tenure and through the start of Ronald Reagans presidency,PolitiFact noted in 2012.In November 2013, after a manipulation charge bubbled up involving the Philadelphia region, the U.S. Census Bureau -- which conducts the Current Population Survey that gathers information from households later converted by the government to the unemployment rate --posted a statementsaying: We have no reason to believe that there was a systematic manipulation of the data described in media reports. As a statistical agency, the Census Bureau is very conscientious about our responsibility to produce accurate Current Population Survey data for the Bureau of Labor Statistics and all other surveys we conduct.The bureau referred the matter to the U.S. Department of Commerces Office of the Inspector General, whichsaid in May 2014 it had found no evidenceunemployment data had been manipulated in the months leading up to the November 2012 national election. That report also recommended some bureau reforms.Among them,Andrew Biggsof the American Enterprise Institute told us the fact the regular jobless rate doesnt reflect discouraged job-seekers or part-timers wishing for full-time jobs isnt a deliberate government misrepresentation. Still, Biggs emailed, it means the unemployment rate doesnt deliver an accurate picture of the labor markets health. If labor force participation were the same today as prior to the recession, I believe the unemployment rate would be around 8.3%. So the idea that the labor market is really healthy today just isnt that true, he said.William Shobe, director of the Center for Economic and Policy Studies at the University of Virginia, said its important to remember there are many measures of unemployment, including privately produced surveys. And they all agree, within the margins of error, Shobe said. The immediate conclusion that you can draw from that is that no rogue interviewer or group of rogue interviewers have managed to budge the unemployment far (or at all, mind you) from the value it would have had otherwise.Shobe suggested we query University of Wisconsin economistMenzie Chinnwho told us by email that he considers such critiques of the rate to be specious; Chinn pointed us to his October 2012blog posttaking to task a similar statement by business executive Jack Welch.By phone,Tara Sinclair, a George Washington University economist, said nothing notable has occurred to demonstrate the unemployment rate has been doctored or massaged, though in August 2014, Princeton University economistAlan Kruegerand others wrotea paperpointing out fewer people are responding to the survey that feeds the rate. ANew York Timescolumnist, David Leonhardt,summarizedthe upshot as being a seeming increase in the number of people who once would have qualified as officially unemployed and today are considered out of the labor force, neither working nor looking for work.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_403

John Roberts and the Decision Regarding the Affordable Care Act

07/08/2012

I would like to know if the following email attributed to Charles Krauthammer has been correctly attributed. Circulated under the subject line: Health Care Decision: From Charles Krauthammer. To all my friends, particularly those conservatives who are despondent over the searing betrayal by Chief Justice John Roberts and the pending demise of our beloved country, I offer this perspective to convey some profound hope and evidence of the Almighty's hand in the affairs of men in relation to the Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare. I initially thought we had cause for despondency when I only heard the results of the decision and not the reasoning or the makeup of the sides. I have now read a large portion of the decision, and I believe that it was precisely the result that Scalia, Alito, Thomas, Roberts, and even Kennedy wanted, and not a defeat for conservatism or the rule of law. I believe the conservatives on the court have outmaneuvered the liberals and demonstrated that the liberals are patently unqualified to be on the Supreme Court. Let me explain. First, let me assure you that John Roberts is a conservative, and he is not dumb, mentally unstable, diabolical, a turncoat, a Souter, or even just trying to be too nice. He is a genius, along with the members of the Court in the dissent. The more of the decision I read, the more remarkable it became. It is not obvious, and it requires a passable understanding of constitutional law, but if it is explained, anyone can see the beauty of it. The decision was going to be a 5-4 decision no matter what, so the allegation that the decision was a partisan political decision was going to be made by the losing side and their supporters. If the bill had been struck down completely with Roberts on the other side, there would have been a national and media backlash against conservatives and probably strong motivation for Obama supporters to come out and vote in November. With today's decision, that dynamic is reversed, and there is a groundswell of support for Romney and Republicans, even among people who were formerly lukewarm toward Romney before today; additionally, Romney raised more than 3 million dollars today. Next, merely striking the law without the support of Democrats and liberals would have left the fight over the commerce clause and the "necessary and proper" clause and the federal government's role in general festering and heading the wrong way, as it has since 1942. As a result of the decision, the liberals are saying great things about Roberts; how wise, fair, and reasonable he is. They would never have said that without this decision, even after the Arizona immigration decision on Monday. In the future, when Roberts rules conservatively, it will be harder for the left and the media to complain about the Roberts Court's fairness. That's why he, as Chief Justice, went to the other side for this decision, not Scalia, Alito, Thomas, or Kennedy, all of whom I believe would have been willing to do it. Next, let's look at the decision itself. Thankfully, Roberts got to write it as Chief Justice, and it is a masterpiece. (As I write this, the liberals don't even know what has happened; they just think Roberts is great and that they won, and we are all going to have free, unlimited healthcare services, and we are all going to live happily ever after.) He first emphatically states that Obamacare is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, saying you cannot make people buy stuff. Then he emphatically states that it is unconstitutional under the "necessary and proper" clause, which only applies to "enumerated powers" in the U.S. Constitution. Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan all went along with these statements. They never would have agreed with that sentiment if that had been the basis for striking the law in total. This is huge because it means that the Court ruled 9-0 that Obamacare was unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause, which was Obama's whole defense of the bill. They also ruled 9-0 on the "necessary and proper" clause. Even better, both of these rulings were unnecessary to the decision, so it is a bonus that we got the liberals to concede this, and it will make it easier to pare away at both theories in the future, which we must do. Well done. Roberts, through very tortured reasoning, goes on to find that the taxing law provides the constitutionality for the law. Virtually everyone agrees that the federal government has the power to do this, as it does with the mortgage deduction for federal income taxes. This too is huge because Obama assiduously avoided using the term "tax," and now he has to admit this law is a tax, and it is on everyone, even the poor. That will hurt him significantly in the polls and will help Romney. More importantly, though, is the fact that this makes it a budgetary issue that can be voted on in the Senate by a mere majority instead of the 60 votes needed to stop a filibuster. That means that if the Republicans can gain a majority in the Senate, they can vote to repeal Obamacare in total. Finally, the Court voted 7-2 to strike down the punitive rules that take away money from states that do not expand Medicaid as required in Obamacare. This too is huge because we got Kagan and Breyer to join this decision, and it can easily be applied to many other cases of extortion the federal government uses to force states to do things they don't want to. This is also amazing because Obamacare has no severability clause, so by striking the Medicaid mandate portion as unconstitutional, the whole bill should have been struck. If that had happened, none of these other benefits would have been accomplished. I haven't read far enough to know how he did it, but I am sure it is brilliant. So to recap, the Roberts Court, through a brilliant tactical maneuver, has: strengthened the limitations of the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause by a unanimous decision, made Obama raise taxes on the poor and middle classes, converted Obamacare into a tax program repealable with 51 votes in the Senate, enhanced Romney's and Republicans' fundraising and likelihood of being elected in November, weakened federal extortion, and got the left to love Roberts and sing his praises, all without anyone even noticing. Even Obama is now espousing the rule of law just two weeks after violating it with his deportation executive order. What a day.

NEI

Origins: This opinion piece began circulating shortly after the June 2012 Supreme Court decision upholding the constitutionality of "Obamacare" health care legislation and has been attributed to Pulitzer Prize-winning syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer. However, it was not written by Charles Krauthammer: the piece was not originally credited to him (his name was added later), it doesn't appear in his published writings, and he wouldn't refer to a late June event as constituting "a great birthday present" for himself (as he was born in mid-March). His column on the court's Obamacare decision, entitled Why Roberts Did It," is distinctly different from the opinion presented here.

FMD_train_486

Was there a leaked email where Hillary Clinton allegedly stated that it was necessary to destroy Syria for Israel?

04/16/2018

Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again: Syria article Lest We Forget Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018 April 15, 2018 The piece included a screenshot of what were purportedly Clinton's views taken from an e-mail, as well as quotes: Clinton Email: We Must Destroy Syria For Israel [...] The best way to help Israel deal with Irans growing nuclear capability is to help the people of Syria overthrow the regime of Bashar Assad, Clinton forthrightly starts off by saying. Even though all US intelligence reports had long dismissed Irans atom bomb program as a hoax (a conclusion supported by the International Atomic Energy Agency), Clinton continues to use these lies to justify destroying Syria in the name of Israel. She specifically links Irans mythical atom bomb program to Syria because, she says, Irans atom bomb program threatens Israels monopoly on nuclear weapons in the Middle East. A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013. published held The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF]. three FOIA.state.gov PDF Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria: forwarded attachment James P. Rubin commentary From: James P. RubinSent: Monday, April 30, 2012 11:03 AMTo: H Subject: Best of luck on China trip First, I want to wish you and Kurt best of luck getting out of the pickle Mr Chen has you in as you arrive in China. I wanted to pass on something I intend to publish on Syria and Iran, because I think it is worth trying to urge the President and his political advisers to act. As you can see from today's column by Jackson Diehl, the pundits and many in the media will push the Syria issue very hard for the foreseeable future. It may not be on the front burner every day, but it will be close to or at the top of the media's attention indefinitely. Interestingly, the Republicans have showed their hand on the foreign policy debate, in which inaction on Syria is pretty much the only serious criticism they can offer that will stick. As you will see from the attached piece, I believe that action on Syria will forestall the biggest danger on the horizon, that Israel launches a surprise attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. Although the pressure has now eased for a variety of reasons, it will return. Action by Washington on Syria, on the other hand, I believe will eliminate much of the urgency for Israeli action. In other words, a more aggressive policy on Syria will eliminate the best case the republican's have going into the November election, will ease substantially the pressure on Israel to attack Iran and possibly spark a wider war in the Middle East, and finally would be the right stance on Syria going forward. I know you may not agree but I thought it was better to share this with you first as at least a new way to look at the problem. All best, your friend,Jamie James P. Rubin Walsh, Nick Paton. "What Do The US, UK And French Airstrikes Mean For Syria's War?" CNN. 15 April 2018.

False

Following controversial airstrikes on Syria in April 2018, a 2017 article published by repeat offender YourNewsWire.com with the claim that Hillary Clinton voiced support for destroying Syria in a "leaked" e-mail popped up and began to circulate again:Lest We Forget Hillary Clinton: We Must Destroy Syria For israel https://t.co/VxkzUu1IkE pic.twitter.com/Zf4iagpqsv Michael Lee (@MichaelLee2009) April 15, 2018A nearly identical claim (since deleted) was published by a separate site in March 2016. Both attribute the text of the purported e-mail to Clinton during her tenure as Secretary of State, a position she held for approximately four years between 2009 and 2013.The text is indeed a part of WikiLeaks' "Hillary Clinton Email Archive," and the title search returns three documents in that data set. The same document was also available via FOIA.state.gov [PDF].Although its content was characterized as an e-mail authored by Hillary Clinton, that is misleading. It appears that she actually received and forwarded an attachment from James P. Rubin. In all three documents (two forwards and an attachment) it is clear that Rubin authored and sent the commentary to Clinton, stating in his preface that the then-Secretary of State "may not agree" with his stance on Syria:

FMD_train_404

More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state.

08/03/2017

Texas Gov. Greg Abbott drew cheers from supporters in San Antonio as he vowed to keep the Texas economy rocking and laid a claim to history. The Republican governor, kicking off hisre-election campaign, said in July 2017: And since I took office, in just the last two and a half years, in Texas, weve added more than 450,000 new jobs. More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state. That jobs-gained number sounded a little low. According toBureau of Labor Statistics figureswe drew from a bureau economist, Cheryl Abbot, when Abbott took office in January 2015, the state was home to nearly 11.8 million non-farm jobs. As of June 2017, that count was up by about 507,500, exceeding 12.3 million. We decided to check whether more Texas residents have jobs than ever before. Abbotts campaign didnt answer requests for the basis of the claim. Meantime, economists concurred that according tobureau figures drawing on U.S. Census Bureau surveys, more than 12.8 million Texas residents had jobs from April 2017 through June 2017--with the April 2017 count of 12,872,506 employed people setting a record, though the tally subsequently slid marginally, reaching 12,848,980 in June 2017. A bureau-provided chart shows the dip in employment after that count had mostly steadily increased since January 2015: SOURCE:Chartshowing Texas Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS (received by email from Cheryl Abbot, regional economist, BLS, July 21, 2017) The economists we queried noted that because Texas continues to grow in population, it makes sense, barring economic disaster, that youd see more people having jobs year after year. Status quo in Texas,Mark J. Perry,an economist at the University of Michigan-Flint, told us by email, its always had steady job growth. Perry passed along a chart showing the nearly uniform annual upticks in employed Texas since 1939: SOURCE:Chart based ondata posted by Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis(provided by email from Mark J. Perry, Ph.D., scholar atThe American Enterprise Institute, professor of Finance and Business Economics, School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint, July 28, 2017) So, Abbott was mostly right about the record count of Texans with jobs at the time he spoke. Jobless rate, employment-population ratio Other indicators provide context, however. For instance, the month before Abbott kicked off his re-election effort, the states unemployment rate of 4.6 percent--as in the share of able workers unsuccessfully seeking employment--was not a record low. We counted 59 months since 1976 when the Texas jobless rate was lower, per an Abbot-providedchart. Also, a ratio that compares the number of people with jobs to the population as a whole was higher for Texas and other states in the 1990s, a facetexploredby PolitiFact in Washington in July 2016. That story also noted that nationally since the end of the Great Recession, the U.S. employment-to-population ratio had climbed, slowly but fairly steadily. When we asked, Abbot shared bureau figures rooted inCensus Bureau survey findingsto represent changes in the Texas employment-population ratio. Similarly, economistTara Sinclair, an associate professor at George Washington University, drew onbureau figuresshowing that the states employment-population ratio exceeded 65 percent from 1995 through 2000 but fell to 61.5 percent in 2014 and to to 60.9 percent and 60.7 percent, respectively, in 2015 and 2016. In the latter year, the bureau says, that ratio reflected 12,671,801 Texans with jobs out of 20,861,611 residents. By email, Sinclair wrote that similar to thenational pattern for the employment-population ratio,Texasis still low relative to its historical peak (although doing a bit better than the national ratio). SOURCE: Chart drawing on BLS annual data for Texas (received by email fromTara Sinclair, associate professor of Economics and International Affairs, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington University, July 21, 2017) Our ruling Abbott said: More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state. By raw numbers, the more than 12.87 million employed Texans in April 2017 set a record though that count had dipped to 12.85 million by the time Abbott spoke. Also, the states June 2017 jobless rate, 4.6 percent, exceeded the rate in more than 50 months since 1976 while Texas in 2016 (like the nation) had an employment-population ratio trailing what it used to be. 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

The Republican governor, kicking off hisre-election campaign, said in July 2017: And since I took office, in just the last two and a half years, in Texas, weve added more than 450,000 new jobs. More Texans have jobs today than ever before in the history of our state.That jobs-gained number sounded a little low. According toBureau of Labor Statistics figureswe drew from a bureau economist, Cheryl Abbot, when Abbott took office in January 2015, the state was home to nearly 11.8 million non-farm jobs. As of June 2017, that count was up by about 507,500, exceeding 12.3 million.Abbotts campaign didnt answer requests for the basis of the claim. Meantime, economists concurred that according tobureau figures drawing on U.S. Census Bureau surveys, more than 12.8 million Texas residents had jobs from April 2017 through June 2017--with the April 2017 count of 12,872,506 employed people setting a record, though the tally subsequently slid marginally, reaching 12,848,980 in June 2017.SOURCE:Chartshowing Texas Local Area Unemployment Statistics, BLS (received by email from Cheryl Abbot, regional economist, BLS, July 21, 2017)Status quo in Texas,Mark J. Perry,an economist at the University of Michigan-Flint, told us by email, its always had steady job growth.SOURCE:Chart based ondata posted by Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis(provided by email from Mark J. Perry, Ph.D., scholar atThe American Enterprise Institute, professor of Finance and Business Economics, School of Management, University of Michigan-Flint, July 28, 2017)For instance, the month before Abbott kicked off his re-election effort, the states unemployment rate of 4.6 percent--as in the share of able workers unsuccessfully seeking employment--was not a record low. We counted 59 months since 1976 when the Texas jobless rate was lower, per an Abbot-providedchart.Also, a ratio that compares the number of people with jobs to the population as a whole was higher for Texas and other states in the 1990s, a facetexploredby PolitiFact in Washington in July 2016. That story also noted that nationally since the end of the Great Recession, the U.S. employment-to-population ratio had climbed, slowly but fairly steadily.When we asked, Abbot shared bureau figures rooted inCensus Bureau survey findingsto represent changes in the Texas employment-population ratio. Similarly, economistTara Sinclair, an associate professor at George Washington University, drew onbureau figuresshowing that the states employment-population ratio exceeded 65 percent from 1995 through 2000 but fell to 61.5 percent in 2014 and to to 60.9 percent and 60.7 percent, respectively, in 2015 and 2016. In the latter year, the bureau says, that ratio reflected 12,671,801 Texans with jobs out of 20,861,611 residents.By email, Sinclair wrote that similar to thenational pattern for the employment-population ratio,Texasis still low relative to its historical peak (although doing a bit better than the national ratio).SOURCE: Chart drawing on BLS annual data for Texas (received by email fromTara Sinclair, associate professor of Economics and International Affairs, Columbian College of Arts and Sciences, George Washington University, July 21, 2017)MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_1787

Posts on 'Little People, Big World' that discuss a 'Loss' can be deceptive.

01/05/2022

On Jan. 4, 2022, a strange Facebook ad appeared that claimed: "The Sudden Loss That Hit 'Little People, Big World.'" It led to a lengthy article that claimed to reveal news of a death, "shocking truth," or some sort of sad development about the Roloff family. claimed However, this was all very misleading. For readers unfamiliar with "Little People, Big World," it's a reality TV show that follows the lives of the Roloff family. reality TV show "Matt and Amy Roloff, both 4 feet tall, face a variety of challenges in raising their four children: twins Jeremy and Zach, who is 2-feet shorter than his brother, and younger siblings Molly and Jacob, who like Jeremy are average height," a synopsis on TheTVDB.com reads. "The family's 34-acre Oregon farm serves as part playground and part moneymaker. As the series ages, Matt and Amy deal with personal strife, embrace their kids getting older and leading lives of their own, become grandparents, and attempt to keep Roloff Farms operational." synopsis The show began airing on TLC in 2006 and is often referred to by the acronym, "LPBW." Matt and Amy divorced in 2015. airing on TLC divorced In the Facebook ad about the Roloff family's "sudden loss," the caption contained several grammatical errors. It said: "Since the allegation were confirmed to the public, the cast of 'Little People, Big World' has ask for some privacy. Here is all the information given to the public so far." In other words, the ad appeared to imply that there were recent developments about a death that involved someone on "LPBW" or in the Roloff family. This strange Facebook ad came from a page named P-15897-2. The ad was posted on a Facebook page with a strange name: P-15897-2. It was described as a "clothing store." However, the truth was that this was nothing more than a quickly-created page that was being used to profit off of tragic and outdated news. It was likely managed from outside of the U.S. One of the photos showed a young Zach Roloff in a hospital bed. The picture was a screenshot from a 2006 episode of "LPBW" named "Zach's Emergency" where he experienced a "mysterious illness." episode The ad led to a lengthy slideshow-style article on foodisinthehouse.com. Its headline read: "Little People, Big World: Learn the Shocking Truth About the Roloff Family." article However, the Facebook ad and this article were both misleading. The story was nothing more than an extremely long history of the Roloff family. It mentioned several tragic developments. Matt had a brother named Josh who died at the age of 34 in 1999. He had experienced multiple medical problems since his birth, according to a report. Additionally, the story mentioned the August 2021 death of Felix, who was Amy's dog. She posted about his passing on Instagram. This news, which was reported by People.com and others, was around four months old by the time the misleading article was published and the Facebook ad went live. There's no evidence that the family asked "for privacy" about either of these two past deaths, as the Facebook ad claimed. report posted reported by People.com The lengthy article also documented two unrelated, sad developments about Dr. Jennifer Arnold, the star of the former TLC series, "The Little Couple." According to Chron.com, the show provided a "deeper look into the married life of Dr. Jen Arnold and Bill Klein, who happen to be dwarfs." According to Chron.com In 2013, Today.com reported that Dr. Arnold was "diagnosed with stage 3 choriocarcinoma, a rare cancer that began with a September pregnancy loss." reported In sum, an unknown person was paying Facebook to display an ad about "Little People, Big World" that seemed to indicate there were new and tragic developments. It said that the Roloff family asked "for privacy" and hinted with the words "so far" that more information was coming about a recent "loss" or death. However, this was misleading and appeared to be little more than an attempt to profit from past tragedies from two TLC TV shows. For these reasons, we have rated this claim as "Outdated." attempt to profit Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads. submit ads to us

NEI

On Jan. 4, 2022, a strange Facebook ad appeared that claimed: "The Sudden Loss That Hit 'Little People, Big World.'" It led to a lengthy article that claimed to reveal news of a death, "shocking truth," or some sort of sad development about the Roloff family.For readers unfamiliar with "Little People, Big World," it's a reality TV show that follows the lives of the Roloff family."Matt and Amy Roloff, both 4 feet tall, face a variety of challenges in raising their four children: twins Jeremy and Zach, who is 2-feet shorter than his brother, and younger siblings Molly and Jacob, who like Jeremy are average height," a synopsis on TheTVDB.com reads. "The family's 34-acre Oregon farm serves as part playground and part moneymaker. As the series ages, Matt and Amy deal with personal strife, embrace their kids getting older and leading lives of their own, become grandparents, and attempt to keep Roloff Farms operational."The show began airing on TLC in 2006 and is often referred to by the acronym, "LPBW." Matt and Amy divorced in 2015. This strange Facebook ad came from a page named P-15897-2.One of the photos showed a young Zach Roloff in a hospital bed. The picture was a screenshot from a 2006 episode of "LPBW" named "Zach's Emergency" where he experienced a "mysterious illness."The ad led to a lengthy slideshow-style article on foodisinthehouse.com. Its headline read: "Little People, Big World: Learn the Shocking Truth About the Roloff Family."It mentioned several tragic developments. Matt had a brother named Josh who died at the age of 34 in 1999. He had experienced multiple medical problems since his birth, according to a report. Additionally, the story mentioned the August 2021 death of Felix, who was Amy's dog. She posted about his passing on Instagram. This news, which was reported by People.com and others, was around four months old by the time the misleading article was published and the Facebook ad went live. There's no evidence that the family asked "for privacy" about either of these two past deaths, as the Facebook ad claimed.The lengthy article also documented two unrelated, sad developments about Dr. Jennifer Arnold, the star of the former TLC series, "The Little Couple." According to Chron.com, the show provided a "deeper look into the married life of Dr. Jen Arnold and Bill Klein, who happen to be dwarfs."In 2013, Today.com reported that Dr. Arnold was "diagnosed with stage 3 choriocarcinoma, a rare cancer that began with a September pregnancy loss."In sum, an unknown person was paying Facebook to display an ad about "Little People, Big World" that seemed to indicate there were new and tragic developments. It said that the Roloff family asked "for privacy" and hinted with the words "so far" that more information was coming about a recent "loss" or death. However, this was misleading and appeared to be little more than an attempt to profit from past tragedies from two TLC TV shows. For these reasons, we have rated this claim as "Outdated."Snopes debunks a wide range of content, and online advertisements are no exception. Misleading ads often lead to obscure websites that host lengthy slideshow articles with lots of pages. It's called advertising "arbitrage." The advertiser's goal is to make more money on ads displayed on the slideshow's pages than it cost to show the initial ad that lured them to it. Feel free to submit ads to us, and be sure to include a screenshot of the ad and the link to where the ad leads.

FMD_train_200

Video Doesn't Show Ukraine Soldiers Killing Civilians in Chechnya

03/14/2022

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

False

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

FMD_train_1422

A nation established by brilliant minds, yet managed by fools.

05/08/2013

Collected via email, 2013: A Country Founded by Geniuses but Run by Idiots Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy: If you can get arrested for hunting or fishing without a license, but not for entering and remaining in the country illegally you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you have to get your parents permission to go on a field trip or to take an aspirin in school, but not to get an abortion you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you MUST show your identification to board an airplane, cash a check, buy liquor, or check out a library book and rent a video, but not to vote for who runs the government you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the government wants to prevent stable, law-abiding citizens from owning gun magazines that hold more than ten rounds, but gives twenty F-16 fighter jets to the crazy new leaders in Egypt you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If, in the nations largest city, you can buy two 16-ounce sodas, but not one 24-ounce soda, because 24-ounces of a sugary drink might make you fat you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If an 80-year-old woman or a three-year-old girl who is confined to a wheelchair can be strip-searched by the TSA at the airport, but a woman in a burka or a hijab is only subject to having her neck and head searched you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If your government believes that the best way to eradicate trillions of dollars of debt is to spend trillions more you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If a seven-year-old boy can be thrown out of school for saying his teacher is "cute," but hosting a sexual exploration or diversity class ingrade school is perfectly acceptable you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If hard work and success are met with higher taxes and more government regulation and intrusion, while not working is rewarded with Food Stamps, WIC checks, Medicaid benefits, subsidized housing, and free cell phones you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If the governments plan for getting people back to work is to provide incentives for not working, by granting 99 weeks of unemployment checks, without any requirement to prove that gainful employment was diligently sought, but couldnt be found you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If you pay your mortgage faithfully, denying yourself the newest big-screen TV, while your neighbor buys iPhones, time shares, a wall-sized do-it-all plasma screen TV and new cars, and the government forgives his debt when he defaults on his mortgage you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. If being stripped of your Constitutional right to defend yourself makes you more "safe" according to the government you might live in a nation that was founded by geniuses but is run by idiots. What a country! How about we give God a reason to continue blessing America! The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian. Jeff Foxworthy However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.) attached Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright"). Politically True As usual, the list has seen numerous alterations in the process of being passed around the Internet, and several of the entries appearing in earlier versions have since dropped off: If the only school curriculum allowed to explain how we got here is evolution, but your government stops a $15 million construction project to keep a rare spider from evolving to extinction you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that using steroids or other drugs will ruin your life, but throwing you in prison for years will not you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If children are forcibly removed from parents who discipline them with spankings while children of addicts are left in filth and drug infested homes you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. If your government believes that the way to make a school of unarmed children safe is to pass another law, this time with the illusion that three 10-round magazines in a rifle is safer than a 30-round magazine you might live in a country founded by geniuses and run by idiots. The phrase "founded by geniuses and run by idiots" appears to be a variant of a similar statement that appeared in Herman Wouk's 1951 novel "The Caine Mutiny": "The Navy is a master plan designed by geniuses for execution by idiots." In the 1954 film of the same name, the line was rendered, "The first thing you've got to learn about this ship is that she was designed by geniuses to be run by idiots." <!-- Sources: Metz, Ken. "It's Never Wise to Insult the Police Officer." The Bath County News-Outlook. 30 August 2007.--> Update [Aug. 2, 2022]: Updated SEO and title.

False

The above-referenced list of entries detailing "A Country Founded by Geniuses But Run by Idiots" was widely circulated via the internet in early 2013 with an "Attributed to Jeff Foxworthy" tag at its head, leading many to believe it was actually the work of that nationally famous comedian.However, othen than its basic "If you ... you might be ..." pattern that mimics Jeff Foxworthy's popular "You might be a redneck" routines, this item bears little resemblance to anything produced by Foxworthy: his comedic material is typically affectionate and self-deprecating and involves poking fun at his own milieu; his brand of humor is much more apolitical and non-partisan than the list reproduced above. (Nonetheless, Jeff's name has been falsely attached to other similar political pieces that have little in common with the tenor and substance of his comedy material.)Jeff's brother, Jay, confirmed for us that this material was not written by his sibling. The original compiler of this list appears to be Fritz Edmunds, who posted it to his "Politically True" blog back on Feb. 3, 2013 (albeit with a disclaimer noting that "some of the ideas were from an email that did not contain any copyright").

FMD_train_780

Did a 1922 Article Warn of Oceans Warming?

07/01/2013

One of the key issues in the global warming debate is whether modern scientists have sufficient data and tools to determine if current warming trends are indicative of long-term climatic changes rather than relatively short-term weather pattern variability. A text widely shared online seemingly provides an example of the pitfalls of mistaking the latter for the former, purportedly reproducing a 1922 newspaper article warning that the Arctic Ocean was experiencing a radical change in climatic conditions, which was warming its waters, melting ice, and disrupting wildlife: "The Arctic Ocean is warming up, icebergs are growing scarcer, and in some places the seals are finding the water too hot," according to a report to the Commerce Department yesterday from Consulafft, at Bergen, Norway. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers all point to a radical change in climate conditions and hitherto unheard-of temperatures in the Arctic zone. Exploration expeditions report that scarcely any ice has been met as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes. Soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters showed the Gulf Stream still very warm. Great masses of ice have been replaced by moraines of earth and stones, the report continued, while at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared. Very few seals and no white fish are found in the eastern Arctic, while vast shoals of herring and smelts, which have never before ventured so far north, are being encountered in the old seal fishing grounds. I apologize; I neglected to mention that this report was from November 2, 1922, as reported by the AP and published in The Washington Post 88 years ago! The text in the above example is a genuine transcription of a 1922 newspaper article, an Associated Press account that appeared on page 2 of The Washington Post on November 2 of that year. That article, in turn, was based on information relayed by the American consul in Norway to the U.S. State Department in October 1922 and published in the Monthly Weather Review: "The Arctic seems to be warming up. Reports from fishermen, seal hunters, and explorers who sail the seas about Spitzbergen and the eastern Arctic all point to a radical change in climatic conditions and hitherto unheard-of high temperatures in that part of the Earth's surface." In August 1922, the Norwegian Department of Commerce sent an expedition to Spitzbergen and Bear Island under the leadership of Dr. Adolf Hoel, a lecturer on geology at the University of Christiania. Its purpose was to survey and chart the lands adjacent to the Norwegian mines on those islands, take soundings of the adjacent waters, and make other oceanographic investigations. Ice conditions were exceptional; in fact, so little ice had never before been noted. The expedition all but established a record, sailing as far north as 81 degrees 29 minutes in ice-free water. This is the farthest north ever reached with modern oceanographic apparatus. The character of the waters of the great polar basin has heretofore been practically unknown. Dr. Hoel reports that he made a section of the Gulf Stream at 81 degrees north latitude and took soundings to a depth of 3,100 meters. These show the Gulf Stream to be very warm, and it could be traced as a surface current until beyond the 81st parallel. The warmth of the waters makes it probable that the favorable ice conditions will continue for some time. In connection with Dr. Hoel's report, it is of interest to note the unusually warm summer in Arctic Norway and the observations of Capt. Martin Ingebrigsten, who has sailed the eastern Arctic for 54 years. He says that he first noted warmer conditions in 1918, that since that time it has steadily gotten warmer, and that today the Arctic of that region is not recognizable as the same region of 1868 to 1917. Many old landmarks are so changed as to be unrecognizable. Where formerly great masses of ice were found, there are now often moraines, accumulations of earth and stones. At many points where glaciers formerly extended far into the sea, they have entirely disappeared. As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn't substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.

True

That article in turn was based on information relayed by the American consul in Norway to the U.S. State Department in October 1922 and published in the Monthly Weather Review:As interesting as this nearly century-old article might be from a modern perspective, however, it isn't substantive evidence either for or against the concept of anthropogenic global warming. As documented elsewhere, the warming phenomena observed in 1922 proved to be indicative only of a local event in Spitzbergen, not a trend applicable to the Arctic as a whole.

FMD_train_297

Cancer Baby Facebook Hoax

01/09/2012

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

False

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

FMD_train_865

Was Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez unsuccessful in voting for her own bill?

04/06/2019

On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for the federal government to recognize its duty to establish a "Green New Deal." The controversial proposal incorporated seven goals previously articulated by Ocasio-Cortez for the U.S. to realize within ten years: dramatically expanding existing renewable power sources and deploying new production capacity with the goal of meeting 100% of national power demand through renewable sources; building a national, energy-efficient smart grid; upgrading every residential and industrial building for state-of-the-art energy efficiency, comfort, and safety; eliminating greenhouse gas emissions from manufacturing, agriculture, and other industries, including by investing in local-scale agriculture in communities across the country; repairing and improving transportation and other infrastructure, and upgrading water infrastructure to ensure universal access to clean water; funding massive investments in the drawdown of greenhouse gases; and making green technology, industry, expertise, products, and services a major export of the United States, with the aim of becoming the undisputed international leader in helping other countries transition to completely greenhouse gas-neutral economies and bringing about a global Green New Deal. The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as "a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one," "basic income programs," and "universal health care programs." On 26 March 2019, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell forced a preemptive vote in the U.S. Senate on a procedural motion to take up a binding form of the resolution, deriding the Green New Deal as a plan for "basically outlawing the only sources of energy that working-class and middle-class families can actually afford," which would kill off entire domestic industries and eliminate millions of jobs. Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a "sham" intended to "quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change" and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage. The criticism suggested that Republicans set up this vote to highlight potential splits in the Democratic caucus and force lawmakers to splinter from a high-profile, progressive idea. As the thinking goes, if only part of the Democratic caucus wound up backing the idea, Republicans could argue that it didn't actually have enough support from the party. Additionally, the move aimed to put Democrats from more moderate states in a tough position, forcing them to choose between backing a popular liberal idea and potentially turning off some of their constituents. "The Senate vote is a perfect example of that kind of superficial approach to government," Ocasio-Cortez said. "What McConnell's doing is trying to rush this bill to the floor without a hearing, without any markups, without working through committee because he doesn't want to save our planet. He thinks we can drink oil in 30 years when all our water is poisoned." In the end, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted present in protest of the GOP's action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin. A meme circulated online afterward, offensively portraying Rep. Ocasio-Cortez as a "100% retard" for failing to "even vote for [her] own bill." The implications of that meme were wrong on two counts: 1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward. This was not the non-binding Green New Deal resolution introduced by Sen. Edward Markey and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Feb. 7. Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether "it is the sense of the Senate" that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become "the policy of the United States," without so much as a hearing. Under Senate rules, making it binding was the only way McConnell could hold a show vote without the usual process of assigning the legislation to the appropriate committees for discussion and debate. That would put a public spotlight on experts testifying and debate over climate solutions, something McConnell sought to avoid. Technically, the Senate voted on whether to end debate on McConnell's motion to proceed to consideration of his version of a Green New Deal resolution. This "cloture" vote wasn't on the substance of the Green New Deal. McConnell's aim was not to actually consider the Green New Deal, which he describes as a "socialist" plan that would "uproot life as we know it." He was hoping the vote would kill talk of a Green New Deal in its infancy while putting Democrats on the spot. 2) Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a member of the U.S. House of Representatives, not a member of the U.S. Senate, and thus she had no opportunity to vote on the cloture motion at all. In short, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez didn't "neglect" or "forget" to participate in the referenced Green New Deal vote; she wasn't eligible to take part in it because she isn't a member of the Senate. Nor was the vote that took place in the Senate one that directly addressed the merits or deficiencies of her Green New Deal resolution.

False

On 7 February 2019, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Rep. Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats, introduced a five-page nonbinding resolution to the U.S. House of Representatives for federal government to recognize its duty to establish a "Green New Deal."The broader proposal also called for sweeping social measures such as "a job guarantee program to assure a living wage job to every person who wants one," "basic income programs" and "universal health care programs."Democrats criticized McConnell's move as a "sham" intended to "quash debate by blocking public hearings and expert testimony about the consequences of inaction on climate change" and to hasten a vote in order to force Senate Democrats to commit to either supporting or rejecting the proposal at a very early stage:In the event, most Democrats didn't bite. All 53 Republicans in the Senate voted against the plan, but they were joined by just three Democrats and independent Sen. Angus King of Maine (who caucuses with Democrats). The remaining 43 Democratic senators all declined to commit and merely voted present in protest of the GOPs action. The procedural motion was thus voted down by a 57-0 margin.1) The Senate was not voting on whether to accept or reject Ocasio-Cortez's "Green New Deal" resolution. What the Senate voted on was a different form of the resolution, and what they voted against was not the resolution itself but a motion for cloture, the step of agreeing to end debate on a bill so that Senate consideration of it can move forward:Instead, this was a version that McConnell himself introduced, and it was a binding resolution. Instead of voting on whether "it is the sense of the Senate" that the government has a duty to create a Green New Deal, senators would have been skipping ahead to vote on whether the Green New Deal should become "the policy of the United States," without so much as a hearing.

FMD_train_668

Is 'QAnon Shaman' Jake Angeli Turning His Back on Trump?

01/30/2021

Weeks after the U.S. Capitol insurrection, reports surfaced claiming that a highly visible member of the right-wing mob the self-described "QAnon digital soldier" who was photographed shirtless, wearing horns and furs on his head was abandoning former President Donald Trump as a demagogue. reports QAnon digital soldier For example, a Jan. 29 Vice headline read: "The 'QAnon Shaman' just Flipped On Trump." headline read The assertion had some truth to it. In an interview with The Associated Press, the lawyer representing the man Jacob Chansley or "Jake Angeli" of Arizona said his client's attitude toward the president had changed since the deadly siege, and he was willing to testify in Trump's historic second impeachment. That trial by the U.S. Senate was set to begin the week of Feb. 8 and would either convict or acquit the former president of inciting his supporters to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 to try to halt a ceremonial vote to affirm the outcome of the 2020 presidential election. halt a ceremonial vote The attorney, Albert Watkins, said he wants senators to hear the perspective of someone who was incited by Trump, according to the Jan. 30 story. The Associated Press continued: Jan. 30 story Watkins said his client was previously 'horrendously smitten' by Mr. Trump but now feels let down after Mr. Trump's refusal to grant Chansley and others who participated in the insurrection a pardon. 'He felt like he was betrayed by the president,' Watkins said. Here is a full list of the people Trump pardoned or commuted during his final hours in office. full list We reached out to Watkins to determine the legitimacy of the news story. In an email, we sent him a link to The Associated Press reporting, asked him if it was indeed accurate, and, if so, inquired why or under what circumstances his party decided to offer Angeli's testimony. He responded in an email message to Snopes: "My client is available if called upon to testify. No statement to the contrary has been made." In other words, it was true to claim that Angeli who was arrested and charged on Jan. 9 for insurrection-related crimes including civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, and disorderly conduct was willing to testify in Trump's Senate impeachment trial, which may determine whether Trump can run for political office in the future. Jan. 9 whether However, the nature of Angeli's testimony, should he be asked to speak during the trial, remained unknown as of this writing. "The words of Trump supporters who are accused of participating in the riot may end up being used against him in his impeachment trial," The Associated Press reported, though no evidence existed to determine whether Angeli would indeed share his experience to help senators convict the former president. In sum, while it was true that Angeli was willing to testify at Trump's second impeachment trial, it was not known whether he was preparing to make a statement that would help or hurt the efforts of senators who believe the former president is guilty of inciting the insurrection. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "mixture" of truthful, false, and undetermined information.

NEI

Weeks after the U.S. Capitol insurrection, reports surfaced claiming that a highly visible member of the right-wing mob the self-described "QAnon digital soldier" who was photographed shirtless, wearing horns and furs on his head was abandoning former President Donald Trump as a demagogue.For example, a Jan. 29 Vice headline read: "The 'QAnon Shaman' just Flipped On Trump."That trial by the U.S. Senate was set to begin the week of Feb. 8 and would either convict or acquit the former president of inciting his supporters to break into the Capitol on Jan. 6 to try to halt a ceremonial vote to affirm the outcome of the 2020 presidential election.The attorney, Albert Watkins, said he wants senators to hear the perspective of someone who was incited by Trump, according to the Jan. 30 story. The Associated Press continued:Here is a full list of the people Trump pardoned or commuted during his final hours in office.In other words, it was true to claim that Angeli who was arrested and charged on Jan. 9 for insurrection-related crimes including civil disorder, obstruction of an official proceeding, and disorderly conduct was willing to testify in Trump's Senate impeachment trial, which may determine whether Trump can run for political office in the future.

FMD_train_97

Was a deeply biased 'Trump vs Democrat' poll published by Trump's 2020 Campaign?

07/03/2019

Readers responded with bemusement and skepticism in June 2019 after an "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll" emerged online and on social media, appearing to pose questions framed in a heavily anti-Democrat way. For example, one survey question asked, "Who would you rather see fix our Nation's shattered immigration policies? President Trump // A MS-13 loving Democrat," while another somewhat tautological question asked: "Who would you trust to NOT raise your taxes? President Trump // A High Tax Democrat." Such bias in the questions, as well as some clear nods to Trump's go-to insults against his political opponents (the poll referenced "a Lyin' Democrat" and "a Low IQ Democrat"), prompted inquiries from Snopes readers who were uncertain whether they were reading a parody or hoax or an official Trump 2020 campaign poll. One reader asked, "Oh my gosh, is this really from the Trump campaign? Or some satire site?" while another wrote, "Is this for real? It sounds too crazy ..." The survey was indeed published by Trump's official re-election campaign committee, on that campaign's official website. An archived version can be read here. The site on which it appeared, donaldjtrump.com, is run by two formally registered, pro-Trump committees and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The website contains the following disclaimer, which makes clear the official nature of the June 2019 survey and all other content featured on the site: here "Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee." Committee Inc Committee The poll's true purpose may not have been to create a set of results that reflected in a misleadingly positive way on the president but rather to harvest contact information respondents were required to enter their name, zip code and email address in order to submit their answers. The full list of questions was as follows: The "Trump vs Democrat" poll bore similarities to another survey on the subject of "mainstream media accountability," which Trump's website published in February 2017, and that included heavily slanted questions such as. "Do you feel that the media is too eager to slur conservatives with baseless accusations of racism and sexism?" accountability DonaldJTrump.com. "Official 2020 Trump vs Democrat Poll." June 2019. DonaldJTrump.com. "Mainstream Media Accountability Survey." February 2017.

True

The survey was indeed published by Trump's official re-election campaign committee, on that campaign's official website. An archived version can be read here. The site on which it appeared, donaldjtrump.com, is run by two formally registered, pro-Trump committees and the Republican National Committee (RNC). The website contains the following disclaimer, which makes clear the official nature of the June 2019 survey and all other content featured on the site:"Paid for by the Trump Make America Great Again Committee, a joint fundraising committee authorized by and composed of Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. and the Republican National Committee."The poll's true purpose may not have been to create a set of results that reflected in a misleadingly positive way on the president but rather to harvest contact information respondents were required to enter their name, zip code and email address in order to submit their answers.The "Trump vs Democrat" poll bore similarities to another survey on the subject of "mainstream media accountability," which Trump's website published in February 2017, and that included heavily slanted questions such as. "Do you feel that the media is too eager to slur conservatives with baseless accusations of racism and sexism?"

FMD_train_923

Was Fox News talking about the 'War on Christmas' while other networks focused on Michael Cohen's guilty pleas?

08/22/2018

On August 21, 2018, President Donald Trump's former lawyer, Michael Cohen, pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including multiple counts of tax evasion and violations of federal campaign finance laws. Cohen also appeared to implicate his former client in possible criminal wrongdoing, alleging that Trump, while a candidate, directed Cohen to pay hush money to two women who claimed to have had affairs with the future president. Those bombshell revelations came on the same afternoon that a jury in Virginia convicted President Trump's former 2016 presidential campaign chairman, Paul Manafort, on eight counts of banking fraud and filing false tax returns, while failing to agree on a verdict for ten other charges. Both the Manafort and Cohen cases arose from investigative work undertaken as part of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's probe into potential Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election and the possibility of Russian collusion with the Trump campaign. Understandably, much of the news media in the United States gave these major developments extensive coverage that day, in print, online, and on the major television news networks. Some observers accused the conservative-leaning Fox News of downplaying the Cohen and Manafort stories or of deliberately focusing on other issues of lesser importance. Elements of this criticism were accurate and proportionate in pointing out the striking differences between how most TV news networks reported on the developments and how Fox News covered them. However, one viral Twitter post appeared to contain a screenshot of Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren discussing the 'War on Christmas,' while other networks covered Cohen's guilty pleas. The chyron in the image read, "TOMI: OBAMA CREATED FESTIVUS TO DESTROY CHRISTMAS." CNN: Michael Cohen to plead guilty. ABC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty. NBC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty. FOX News: pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn Diane N. Sevenay (@Diane_7A) August 21, 2018. That tweet was then reposted on Facebook by the left-wing page "The Other 98%": The image is fake and is an old meme that first appeared in December 2017. Congrats, @BarackObama, on apparently creating Seinfeld pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj @BarackObama pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj jordan (@JordanUhl) December 24, 2017. Lahren herself publicly dismissed the meme: "Does it not bother you to circulate a photoshopped piece of FAKE NEWS? Classy." https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2 https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2 Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) December 24, 2017. The meme does indeed consist of a screenshot of a real Fox News appearance that Lahren made in August 2017, but with the original chyron digitally edited and replaced with something different and non-relevant: .@TomiLahren: "How about when the mainstream media stops covering Russia day in and day out, maybe we can drop the Hillary email scandal." pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD @TomiLahren pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD Fox News (@FoxNews) August 31, 2017. It's not clear whether those who posted the edited image in the context of Cohen and Manafort's legal troubles in August 2018 intended to engage in satire or to trick other internet users into believing Lahren really discussed Festivus on that day. Diane Sevenay, whose viral tweet was reposted by "The Other 98%," is a comedy writer. As reported by Mashable, a satirical Fox/Cohen news coverage meme emerged on August 21, with Twitter users taking turns to parody Fox News' content on the day of Cohen's guilty pleas: Mashable CNN - Cohen plea deal MSNBC - Cohen plea deal Fox News - Are cats becoming too tall? Fred Delicious (@Fred_Delicious) August 21, 2018. CNN: Manafort guilty on 8 counts NYT: Manafort guilty of fraud AP: Cohen pleads guilty Fox News: Were the lobsters on the Titanic happy that it sank? #1 Rachel (@rachel) August 21, 2018. Another widely shared screenshot purported to show Fox News reframing the conviction of Manafort by only mentioning, in a mobile news alert, the fact that a mistrial was declared on ten of the charges against him, while other news organizations reported his being found guilty on eight charges. The image, posted to Facebook by the "Angry Americans" page, is authentic but very misleading. Another screenshot shows that Fox News first sent out an alert that read, "Jury finds Manafort guilty on eight counts in fraud trial," before following up with a second one about the mistrial on the ten other charges: Same topic. Different perspectives. ?? #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS Push the Push (@pushthepush) August 21, 2018. Neumeister, Larry and Tom Hays. "Cohen Pleads Guilty, Implicates Trump in Hush-Money Scheme." Associated Press. August 22, 2018. Barakat, Matthew et al. "Ex-Trump Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort Guilty of 8 Charges." Associated Press. August 22, 2018. Stanley-Becker, Isaac. "In Trump's Right-Wing Media Universe, It Was a Day Like Any Other." The Washington Post. August 22, 2018. Sung, Morgan. "What Was Fox News Covering While Manafort and Cohen Were in Court? This Hilarious Meme Has Some Answers." Mashable. August 21, 2018.

False

On 21 August 2018, President Donald Trump's former lawyer Michael Cohen pleaded guilty to eight criminal charges, including multiple counts of tax evasion and violations of federal campaign finance laws. Cohen also appeared to implicate his former client in possible criminal wrongdoing, alleging that Trump, while a candidate, directed Cohen to pay hush money to two women who claimed to have had affairs with the future president.Those bombshell revelations came on the same afternoon that a jury in Virginia convicted President Trump's former 2016 presidential campaign chairman Paul Manafort on eight counts of banking fraud and filing false tax returns, while failing to agree on a verdict for ten other charges.Some observers accused the conservative-leaning Fox News of downplaying the Cohen and Manafort stories, or of deliberately focusing on other issues of lesser import. Elements of this criticism were accurate and proportionate in pointing out the striking differences between how most TV news networks reported on the developments and how Fox News covered them.However, one viral Twitter post appeared to contain a screen shot of Fox News contributor Tomi Lahren discussing the 'War on Christmas,' while other networks covered Cohen's guilty pleas. The chyron in the image read "TOMI: OBAMA CREATED FESTIVUS TO DESTROY CHRISTMAS."CNN: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.ABC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.NBC: Michael Cohen to plead guilty.FOX News: pic.twitter.com/JR4uAnyCQn Diane N. Sevenay (@Diane_7A) August 21, 2018The image is fake, and is an old meme which first appeared in December 2017.Congrats, @BarackObama, on apparently creating Seinfeld pic.twitter.com/5g2t7eYDHj jordan (@JordanUhl) December 24, 2017Does it not bother you to circulate a photoshopped piece of FAKE NEWS? Classy. https://t.co/hvwdgwPkd2 Tomi Lahren (@TomiLahren) December 24, 2017.@TomiLahren: "How about when the mainstream media stops covering Russia day in and day out, maybe we can drop the Hillary email scandal." pic.twitter.com/OwfYWfuhDD Fox News (@FoxNews) August 31, 2017It's not clear whether those who posted the edited image in the context of Cohen and Manafort's legal travails in August 2018 intended to engage in satire, or to trick other internet users into believing Lahren really discussed Festivus on that day. Diane Sevenay, whose viral tweet was re-posted by "The Other 98%", is a comedy writer.As reported by Mashable, a satirical Fox/Cohen news coverage meme emerged on 21 August, with Twitter users taking turns to parody Fox News' content on the day of Cohen's guilty pleas: Fred Delicious (@Fred_Delicious) August 21, 2018 #1 Rachel (@rachel) August 21, 2018The image, posted to Facebook by the "Angry Americans" page, is authentic but very misleading. Another screenshot shows that Fox News first sent out an alert which read "Jury finds Manafort guilty on eight counts in fraud trial" before following up with a second one about the mistrial on the ten other charges:Same topic. Different perspectives. ?? #Manafort pic.twitter.com/r2ZUgFSxDS Push the Push (@pushthepush) August 21, 2018

FMD_train_1902

Juval Aviv Terrorist Predictions

08/01/2007

Claim: Juval Aviv correctly predicted upcoming terrorist attacks against the U.K. and the U.S. Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2007] FROM THE C.O. OF MOSSAD / PLEASE READ A week ago, I was able to attend a dinner with Juval Aviv - the Israeli Agent who the movie "Munich" was about... He was Golda Meir's bodyguard and she appointed him to track down and bring to justice the Palestinian terrorists who took the Israeli athletes hostage and killed them during the Munich Olympic Games. Tonight he shared information that EVERY American needs to know but our government has not shared. His bio is below, his book is "Staying Safe" and I suggest you buy and read it. First, I am going to share what he discussed in regard to the Bush Administration, 9/11 and Iraq and then I will share his predictions for the next attack on the U.S. (and he predicted the London subway bombing on the Bill O'Reilly show on Fox News stating publicly that it would happen within a week - O'Reilly laughed and mocked him saying that in a week he wanted him back on the show and unfortunately, within a week the terrorist attack occured). Juval Aviv gave intelligence (via what he had gathered in Israel and the Middle East) to the Bush Administration about 9/11 a month before it occured. His report specifically said they would use planes asbombs and target high profile buildings and monuments. The Administration ridiculed him and refused to respond (Congress has since hired him as a security consultant - but still the Administration does not listen to him). Within a month 9/11 occured. He didn't agree with going into Iraq - said it didn't make sense if we wanted terrorists responsible for 9/11 (and also he believes in Golda Meir's approach which was to bring justice to the terrorists but do not take down civilians - killing civilians only creates more terrorists - but similar to Bush, Israel's subsequent leaders were not as insightful as Golda Meir) - however, when we did decide to invade Iraq we should have learned from Israel's past mistakes. He very articulately stated that Israel's greatest mistake against their war on terror was to invade the West Bank and Gaza and stay there... He said they should have done the proven anti-terrorist strategy which was "Hit and Leave" instead of "Hit and Stay." Now we are stuck in Iraq and it is worse than Vietnam - Iraq is the U.S.'s West Bank/Gaza . He doesn't think we will ever be able to truly leave because even when we are able to pull our troops back we will still have to go back regularly which will keep us quagmired. We should have hit hard and left immediately - or actually, we shouldn't have gone in at all... Now for the scary stuff.... He predicts the next attack on the U.S. is coming within the next few months. Forget hijacking airplanes because he says terrorists will NEVER try and hijack a plane again as the people on the plane will not go down quietly. Aviv believes our airport security is a joke- we are beingreactionary versus looking at strategies that are effective. 1) Our machines are outdated. They look for metal and the new explosives are made of plastic 2) He talked about how some idiot tried to light his shoe on fire - we now have to take off our shoes, a group of idiots tried to bring aboard liquid explosives - now we can't bring liquids on board. He is waiting for some suicidal maniac to pour liquid explosive on their underwear and light up in a plane or in the terminal and then we will all have to travel naked! 3) We only focus on security when people are heading to the gates, he says that if a terrorist attack targets airports in the future, they will target busy times and on the front end when people are checking in. It would be easy for someone to take two suitcases of explosives, walk up to a busy check-in line, ask a person next to them to watch their bags for a minute while they run to the restroom or get a drink (and I have done that for people myself) and then detonate the bags BEFORE security even gets involved. Israel checks bags before people can enter the airport. Now, back to his predictions: He says the next attack will come in the next few months and will involve suicide bombers and non-suicide bombers in places that people congregate: Disneyland, Las Vegas, Big Cities (NY, SFO, Chicago, etc...) and there it will be shopping malls, subways in rush hour, train stations, casinos, etc.. as well as rural America (Wyoming, Montana, etc...). The attack will be simultaneous detonations around the country (they like big impact) 5-8 cities including rural areas. They won't need to use suicide bombers because at largely populated places like the MGM Grand in Vegas - they can simply valet park! He says this is well known in intelligence circles but our government does not want to alarm Americans. However, he also said that Bush will attack Iran and Syria before he leaves office (we are being prepared for that! and I have to wonder if we are not hearing about this impending attack so America will support attacking Iran and Syria ?). In addition, since we don't have enough troops Bush will likely use small, strategic nuclear weapons regardless that the headlines the next day will read "US Nukes Islamic World" and the world will be a different place to such an extent that global warming will be irrevelent. He did a test for Congress recently putting an empty briefcase in 5 major spots in 5 US cities and not one person called 911 or sought a policeman to check it out. In fact, in Chicago - someone tried to steal it! In Israel an unattended bag or package would be reported in seconds with a citizen shouting "Unattended Bag" and the area cleared slowly, calmly and immediately by the people themselves. Unfortunately, we haven't hurt enough yet for us to be that concerned.... He also discussed how many children were in preschool and kindergarten after 9/11 without parents to pick them up and the schools did not have a plan. Do you have a plan with your kids, schools and familiesif you cannot reach each other by phone? If you cannot return to your house? If you cannot get to your child's school - do they know what to do? We should all have a plan. He said that our government's plan after the next attack is to immediately cut-off EVERYONE's ability to use their telephone, cell phone, blackberry because they don't want terrorists to be able to talk to one another - do you have a plan if you cannot communicate directly with those that you love? Again - I recommend his book, "Staying Safe" and I also recommend we heighten each other's attention now for the inevitable.... In fact, this week the Today Show began with a segment that Al Qaeda was resurfacing - the same kind of action on the Pakistani border occurred before 9/11... It is scary, but we do not have to panic, we just need to be aware.... Unfortunately, the Bush Administration has not been helpful and we cannot change things until 2008. However, remember that when you vote.... Juval Aviv holds an M.A. in Business from Tel Aviv University. He is President and CEO of Interfor, Inc. Based in New York with offices around the world, founded in 1979, Interfor providesforeign and domestic intelligence services to the legal, corporate and financial communities and conducts investigations around the world. In addition, Mr. Aviv serves as a special consultant to the U.S. Congress and other policy makers on issues of terrorism, fraud and money laundering. A leading authority on terrorist networks, Mr. Aviv served as lead investigator for Pan Am Airways into the Pan Am 103-Lockerbie terrorist bombing. He was featured in the recent film, Munich, as the leader of the Israeli team that tracked down the terrorists who kidnapped the Israeli Olympic team. Interfor's services encompass white-collar crime investigations, asset search and recovery, corporate due diligence, litigation support, fraud investigations, internal compliance investigations, security and vulnerability assessments. Since its inception, Interfors asset investigation services have recovered over $2 billion worldwide for its clients. Before founding Interfor, Mr. Aviv served as an officer in the Israel Defense Force (Major, retired) leading an elite Commando/Intelligence Unit, and was later selected by the Israeli Secret Service (Mossad) to participate in a number of intelligence and special operations in many countries in the late 1960s and 1970s. While working as a consultant with El Al, Mr. Aviv surveyed the existing security measures in place and updated El Al's security program, making El Al the safest airline in business today. Most recently, Mr. Aviv wrote Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business, (2004, HarperResource). He is also the author of several other published books on terrorism. He has been a guest on ABC Nightline, FOX News, CNN, BBC Newsnight, ZDF (German National Television) and RAI (Italian National Television) and has been featured in numerous articles inmajor magazines and newspapers worldwide Origins: Juval Aviv ian Israeli-American security consultant and writer and the president of New York-based Interfor Inc. (a corporate investigations firm). He was reportedly the source for the 1984 book Vengeance: The True Story of an Israeli Counter-Terrorist Team (the basis for the 2005 Steven Spielberg film Munich), he is the author of Staying Safe: The Complete Guide to Protecting Yourself, Your Family, and Your Business, and he has made predictions about imminent terrorist attacks on the United States (and the forms they might take) similar to the ones described above. However, some critics have expressed skepticism about Aviv's background, claiming that he has grossly exaggerated his "spymaster" credentials, as the Guardian maintained in a 2006 article about the film Munich: Our investigations show that Aviv never served in Mossad, or any Israeli intelligence organisation. He had failed basic training as an Israeli Defence Force commando, and his nearest approximation to spy work was as a lowly gate guard for the airline El Al in New York in the early 70s. The tale he had woven [in Vengeance] was apparently nothing more than a Walter Mitty fabrication. Similarly, Chris Thompson wrote in the Village Voice that: Most famously, Aviv has promoted the idea that he was the lead Mossad assassin tasked with avenging the 1972 massacre of Israeli Olympic athletes in a secret operation that was portrayed in Steven Spielberg's 2005 film Munich. It was Aviv that actor Eric Bana was supposedly playing, though his name in the movie was "Avner." But throughout Aviv's rise as one of New York's biggest corporate spies and as a terrorism expert on television, there have been nagging questions about his legitimacy. Is this guy really who he says he is? Officially, the Israeli government says that Aviv is full of it. According to a 1990 letter from Yigal Carmon, then the Israeli prime minister's counterterrorism adviser, Aviv was never an assassin, let alone the person chosen by Golda Meir to avenge the Munich massacre. "Aviv does not work and has never worked for the Intelligence Community of the State of Israel," Carmon wrote in response to an inquiry from the U.S. government. In fact, Carmon added, the closest that Aviv ever came to intelligence work was as a security official for an El Al office in New York. "His work in that capacity was terminated at the initiative of the employer because of unsuitability resulting from negative character traits," Carmon wrote. "During the course of his work Yuval [sic] Aviv was found to be unreliable and dishonest." Nonetheless, Aviv has built a remarkable career for himself. In 1989, following the Pan Am 103 bombing that killed 270 people in Lockerbie, Scotland, airline officials hired Aviv to investigate the incident. His report alleging that the bombing was a CIA gun- and drug-smuggling operation gone terribly wrong was leaked to the press, reportedly by Aviv himself. News outlets like Time, NBC, ABC, and Barron's picked up the story. But as more skeptical journalists began to examine Aviv's report, Pan Am officials suddenly dropped their plans to use it as a defense, and the media outlets that had run Aviv's allegations squirmed under the scrutiny. A Brooklyn federal magistrate later found Aviv's report to be utterly without merit. Today, American intelligence officials who were charged with investigating the Pan Am 103 bombing are still furious with Avivand they fume over the fact that national television outlets treat him as anything but a fraud. "This crud, this piece of dirt, went around inventing stories about how this plane got destroyed, because he was paid money to do so," says Vincent Cannistraro, the former chief of operations and analysis at the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. "The man is not worth being in human company, frankly." This guy's full of shit," says Larry Johnson, who served in the CIA and as a deputy director in the State Department's Office of Counterterrorism. "What's true is, yes, he has a security and corporate-intelligence firm, and he's big at playing up the Israeli mystique. If you say it with a foreign accent, you're good to go." Aviv, these senior counterterrorism officials insist, is no terrorism expert; instead, he's a liar who's been spreading falsehoods about his rsum and his prowess as an investigator. American RadioWorks, however, suggests that Aviv was the target of a smear campaign by the FBI for his report implicating U.S. govermment agents in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing: smear campaign In response to Aviv's report, and investigative news stories based on them, government officials launched an attack on Aviv that went well beyond simple denials. In letters to newspaper editors and on network TV, diplomatic and intelligence officials called Aviv a "fabricator" who had lied about his entire background. Asked recently to back up that characterization, Hurley, formerly of the DEA, faxed us a letter dated May, 1990. The letter, signed by Yigal Carmon, "Israeli Prime Minister's Advisor for Countering Terrorism," says Juval Aviv never worked for Israeli intelligence and was fired from a low-level job with El-Al airlines for "dishonesty." The letter is on plain white paper, not Israeli government letterhead. We faxed it to the Israeli Embassy in Washington DC. A spokeswoman said the letter did not have the look of a letter sent from the Office of the Prime Minister. When reached at an office in Tel Aviv, Yigal Carmon said he "did not know of anyone called Juval Aviv" and refused to discuss the contents of any letter with us. A spokesperson for El-Al Airlines in Tel Aviv said he was unaware of any such incident of "dishonesty" by Juval Aviv, or of any firing of Aviv. Aviv, for his part, produces several documents that he's entered into court refuting the accusation that he lied about his background. The documents include an FBI memo about Aviv from 1982, obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, and a contract between Aviv and the US Justice Department, dated 1984. Both refer to Aviv's past association with Israeli intelligence. As late as 1993, an FBI agent wrote to Aviv asking for assistance in a tax-recovery investigation, even as other government officials were publicly calling Aviv a fabricator. Whatever Juval Aviv's credentials might be, we found no evidence to support the claim that he predicted the July 2005 London bombings during a Fox News interview conducted just one week before those attacks occurred. Although Aviv was a frequent guest on American news programs in the years after the 11 September 2001 terrorist attacks, our search of television news transcripts did not turn up any appearances by him on such programs between 5 November 2004 and the day after the London bombings (8 July 2005). He was interviewed on Fox News several days after the London bombings and issued a warning about an "imminent" terrorist attack on the United States, but he did not appear just prior to the London bombings and correctly predict them. His predictions about terrorists hitting the U.S. in "six, seven, or eight cities simultaneously" sometime within the next "ninety days at most" are outdated, as he issued them back in July 2005. It seems safe to say from this vantage point that those predictions were not correct, as no such attacks occurred. July 2005 Last updated: 22 April 2013 Thompson, Chris. "Secret Agent Schmuck." The Village Voice. 16 October 2007. American RadioWorks. "Aviv: Fabricator or Smear Victim?" FOXNews.com. "U.S. Terror Attack 'Ninety Days at Most.'" 13 July 2005. The Independent. "Juval Aviv: The Good Assassin." 16 July 2006.

False

American RadioWorks, however, suggests that Aviv was the target of a smear campaign by the FBI for his report implicating U.S. govermment agents in the Pan Am Flight 103 bombing:His predictions about terrorists hitting the U.S. in "six, seven, or eight cities simultaneously" sometime within the next "ninety days at most" are outdated, as he issued them back in July 2005. It seems safe to say from this vantage point that those predictions were not correct, as no such attacks occurred.

FMD_train_1711

Will banks be required to disclose all transactions exceeding $600 to the IRS as part of the Biden administration's proposal?

09/16/2021

Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Biden's American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan intends to fund all of this through higher taxes on income earners and increased reporting requirements for banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have drawn the ire of several banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan. A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: "The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600, regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) could soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers." Another screenshot shared by our readers expressed similar concerns: "The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal: 'Tell Congress: Don't Let IRS Invade My Privacy.' The Biden administration is proposing requiring financial institutions to report to the IRS all transactions of all business and personal accounts worth more than $600. This is an unprecedented invasion of privacy. In order to oppose this intrusive proposal, please send this letter to your representative and senators immediately." We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after December 31, 2022, states: "This proposal would create a comprehensive financial account information reporting regime. Financial institutions would report data on financial accounts in an information return. The annual return will report gross inflows and outflows with a breakdown for physical cash, transactions with a foreign account, and transfers to and from another account with the same owner." This requirement would apply to all business and personal accounts from financial institutions, including bank, loan, and investment accounts, with the exception of accounts below a low de minimis gross flow threshold of $600 or fair market value of $600. We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the IRS would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. The latter is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting. The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions. The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cash flows above $600, that doesn't mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year—gross inflow and gross outflow—and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldn't require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can obtain other information through audits. According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility in raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600. The Tax Notes report also states that the Treasury Department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third-largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: "Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance." Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, "Only the prior year's total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January." Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBA's consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may impose on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already provide a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems. The costs and other burdens imposed to collect and report account flow information would surpass the potential benefits from such a reporting scheme. New reporting would appear to require material development costs and process additions for financial institutions, as well as significant reconciliation and compliance burdens on impacted taxpayers. For example, reporting total gross receipts and disbursements would require a new reporting paradigm for depository institutions, which necessitates system changes to collect the information. On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to realize: "Increasing the amount of information flowing into the IRS would not in itself lead to increased enforcement, and it might come with added challenges." Former IRS Commissioner Charles O. Rossotti acknowledged that the IRS today cannot use all the information it already receives, and significant areas of noncompliance are barely addressed, so more reporting alone will not solve the problem. It would almost certainly have a deterrent effect for taxpayers contemplating evasion, but the extent of that effect is unclear, and it might be insufficient to justify the costs to financial institutions and the federal government of implementing such a large new reporting regime. But CAP's analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers: "Additional funding would go to enhancing data security. Even at present, the IRS's data security is already much better than the financial industry, with only very rare and limited breaches compared to the exponentially larger data breaches from financial institutions. Second, the reporting of information flows only from financial institutions to the IRS and not in the other direction, as some earlier proposals had called for." The Biden administration's bank reporting proposal is a critical element of the Build Back Better agenda. It gives the IRS some visibility into opaque forms of income that disproportionately accrue to high-income individuals. Despite fearmongering from bank lobbies, the proposal protects taxpayers' privacy while simply requiring banks to provide basic, aggregated information about flows. That enables the IRS to select audits in a more efficient and equitable way so that the vast majority of taxpayers will be less likely to be audited. And by deterring and helping catch tax cheats, the proposal raises substantial revenue for the Build Back Better agenda, which provides critical investments to increase economic opportunities for American families and communities. On October 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600; Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?" "With all due respect, the plural of anecdote is not data," Pelosi said. "Yes, there are concerns that some people have. But if people are breaking the law and not paying their taxes, one way to track them is through the banking measure. I think $600—that's a negotiation that will go on as to what the amount is. But yes." Whatever the impact of this proposal is, it does require additional reporting of certain bank transactions, just not in the way the banks are portraying it.

NEI

Announced in April 2021, U.S. President Joe Bidens American Families Plan is an ambitious proposal that aims to expand Americans' access to childcare and education and increase the number of women in the workforce. The plan is to fund all of this through more taxes on higher-income earners and increased reporting requirements of banks that could potentially yield more tax revenue. These reporting requirements have caught the ire of a number of banks that took issue with this less widely known section of the plan.A Facebook post by FNB Community Bank claimed: The Biden administration has proposed requiring all community banks and other financial institutions to report to the IRS on all deposits and withdrawals through business and personal accounts worth more than $600 regardless of tax liability. This indiscriminate, comprehensive bank account reporting to the [Internal Revenue Service (IRS)] can soon be enacted in Congress and will create an unacceptable invasion of privacy for our customers.The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) even began a campaign, calling on communities to send a letter to Biden to prevent this so-called intrusive proposal":We looked up the proposal itself, and it does require more robust reporting of transactions across business and personal accounts. The proposal, which aims to go into effect after Dec. 31, 2022, states:We begin by explaining some of the more technical terms in this proposal. A "de minimis threshold" is broadly defined as the amount of a transaction that has such a small value that accounting for it would be unreasonable. We spoke to Visiting Assistant Professor of Tax Law at New York University, Nyamagaga Gondwe, who explained, "It is the amount below which the [IRS] would argue isn't worth investigating. It's the difference between your company giving you a $5 card to Subway, versus traveling on a private jet on your company's dime. [The latter] is worth reporting." In this case, "gross flow" refers to the aggregate inflows and outflows of cash from bank accounts. In sum, the current proposal stipulates that an aggregate amount of less than $600 worth of cash flowing into and out of accounts is not worth reporting. The "fair market value" refers to the amount people are willing to pay for an asset in the open market. In this case, Gondwe argued, the use of the term could possibly refer to the changing market value of transactions more than $600 that may occur in foreign currency transactions. The ICBA claims that the proposal will make banks report "all transactions" above the limit, but this is misleading. While it is true that the IRS will have more information on cashflows above $600, that doesnt mean they will have all the information pertaining to all transactions. The Center for American Progress (CAP) points out that banks will only be providing aggregate numbers to the IRS after each year gross inflow and gross outflow and not individualized transaction information. This reporting requirement would also extend to peer-to-peer payment services like Venmo, but wouldnt require people to report any additional information to the government. According to The Wall Street Journal, financial institutions must already report interest, dividends, and investment incomes to the IRS, and the IRS can get other information through audits.According to Marie Sapirie of Tax Notes, a publication focused on tax news, a parenthetical to the proposal indicates that there is some flexibility on raising the minimum account balance/inflow/outflow above $600.The Tax Notes report also states that the treasury department estimated this form of reporting would raise $463 billion over the 10-year budget window, making it the third largest revenue raiser proposed in the budget. The aim is to target businesses outside of large corporations that carry out gross underreporting of their income in the amount of $166 billion per year. According to the proposal: Requiring comprehensive information reporting on the inflows and outflows of financial accounts will increase the visibility of gross receipts and deductible expenses to the IRS. Increased visibility of business income will enhance the effectiveness of IRS enforcement measures and encourage voluntary compliance.Banks claim this would be an invasion of consumer privacy, with the ICBA saying it would allow the government to monitor account information. However, CAP analysts Seth Hanlon and Galen Hendricks argue, Only the prior years total inflow and total outflow would be reported on annual forms. No one would say that the IRS monitors you on your job because it receives a W-2 from your employer with your total wages every January.Another challenge not mentioned in the ICBAs consumer alert is the higher costs this reporting proposal may place on banks. In May 2021, a coalition of banking associations wrote a letter to the U.S. Senate Committee on Finance, arguing that they already give a lot of data to the IRS, and that this would impose additional costs on their systems:On the flipside, Sapirie wrote for Tax Notes, the benefits of such a reporting proposal may be difficult to come by:But CAPs analysis argues that this will help prevent tax evasion, while also providing more funding to enhance data security for consumers:On Oct. 12, 2021, Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the proposal in response to a question from a reporter, who said, "[Banks] are concerned about the tracking of transactions that are greater than $600, Americans are starting to get worried about this. Do you think [this] is going to stay in the Reconciliation Bill?"

FMD_train_157

In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than 3 million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005.

01/25/2012

EDITORS NOTE: Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True. The original article is archivedhere. We also wrote an explanation of our reporting and why we changed the ratinghere. During his State of the Union address on Jan. 24, 2012, President Barack Obama offered some evidence about the nations improving economy. He began by urging listeners to remember how we got here. Long before the recession, jobs and manufacturing began leaving our shores. Technology made businesses more efficient, but also made some jobs obsolete. Folks at the top saw their incomes rise like never before, but most hardworking Americans struggled with costs that were growing, paychecks that werent, and personal debt that kept piling up. In 2008, the house of cards collapsed, he continued. We learned that mortgages had been sold to people who couldnt afford or understand them. Banks had made huge bets and bonuses with other peoples money. Regulators had looked the other way, or didnt have the authority to stop the bad behavior. It was wrong. It was irresponsible. And it plunged our economy into a crisis that put millions out of work, saddled us with more debt and left innocent, hard-working Americans holding the bag. In the six months before I took office, we lost nearly four million jobs. And we lost another four million before our policies were in full effect. Those are the facts. But so are these. In the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. American manufacturers are hiring again, creating jobs for the first time since the late 1990s. Together, weve agreed to cut the deficit by more than $2 trillion. And weve put in place new rules to hold Wall Street accountable, so a crisis like that never happens again. The state of our union is getting stronger. And weve come too far to turn back now. As long as Im president, I will work with anyone in this chamber to build on this momentum. We decided to look specifically at Obamas claim that in the last 22 months, businesses have created more than three million jobs. Last year, they created the most jobs since 2005. We checked Obamas claim by using data published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the federal agency responsible for compiling employment data. We found that the U.S. economy has seen 22 consecutive months of private-sector job growth, beginning in Feb. 2010. During that 22-month period, the number of jobs grew by almost 3.16 million, or about 143,000 per month. We should note that there has also been a job-growth streak for all jobs in the economy -- not just in the private sector -- but this run of positive jobs numbers has been shorter since job losses in the government sector have offset gains in the private sector for much of that time. If you include both private-sector and government jobs, the economy has seen increases in total jobs for 15 straight months, not 22. But since this isnt what Obama said, we wont consider this in our ruling. As for whether 2011 was the best job-producing year since 2005, hes right if youre counting private-sector jobs, and slightly off if youre counting all jobs. In 2011, the number of private-sector jobs rose by about 1.83 million (if you count from the January amount to the December amount) or 1.92 million (if you count from December to December). Either way, the increase in 2011 represented the highest one-year total since 2005, when the number of private-sector jobs increased by either 2.22 million or 2.31 million, depending on the time period used. If you use total jobs, the increase in 2011 was the biggest since 2006, not 2005. But here too, thats not the measure Obama used, so we wont consider it in our rating. Finally, there's another dimension. In his remarks, Obama described the damage to the economy, including losing millions of jobs before our policies were in full effect. Then he describes the subsequent job increases. This suggests that hes taking a degree of credit for the job growth, which runs counter to the reality that no mayor or governor or president deserves all the blame or all the credit for changes in employment. Our ruling Obama is correct on the numbers. By mentioning his policies, he's making a modest linkage that they deserve credit for the improvement when economists say they are just one factor. On balance, we rate the claim Mostly True.

True

EDITORS NOTE: Our original Half True rating was based on an interpretation that Obama was crediting his policies for the jobs increase. But we've concluded that he was not making that linkage as strongly as we initially believed and have decided to change the ruling to Mostly True. The original article is archivedhere.We also wrote an explanation of our reporting and why we changed the ratinghere.

FMD_train_501

Was there a 'Convicted Terrorist' who served on the board of a funding body for the Black Lives Matter movement?

07/14/2020

In the summer of 2020, amid a new wave of nationwide protests over racial injustice and police brutality, readers inquired about the accuracy of online articles and social media posts that claimed a convicted terrorist sat on the board of directors of a left-leaning organization that provides fundraising and administration services for the Black Lives Matter movement. On July 8, 2020, Twitter user @asdomke posted a widely-shared tweet that read: "This is convicted terrorist Susan Rosenberg, she sits on the Board of Directors for the fundraising arm of Black Lives Matter. She was convicted for the 1983 bombing of the United States Capitol Building, the U.S. Naval War College and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Assoc." In June, the website of right-leaning talk radio host Wayne Dupree posted an article with the headline "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC." Similar articles were published by the Daily Caller (an article that was republished by the Western Journal) and on the website of former Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly. article Daily Caller Western Journal Bill O'Reilly On July 9, 2020, Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg's past and her connection to Thousand Currents and the Black Lives Matter movement on his Fox News show. segment Those posts and articles were largely based on a June 24, 2020, report published by the right-leaning Capital Research Center, which carried the headline "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group." The report went on to state that: report Some conservatives have begun speculating the unrest in American cities -- even as late as Monday night in Washington, DC as protestors unsuccessfully worked to tear down a statue of Andrew Jackson and set up an autonomous zone across the street from the White House -- may in part be an attempt to affect the upcoming presidential election, with the chaos and violence intended to make it as difficult as possible for Donald Trump to win a second term. Lending credence to this idea is the fact that at least one board member of the group fiscally sponsoring the most organized part of the Black Lives Matter movement, who have been involved in most of the activity surrounding the current unrest -- tried the same thing almost 40 years ago during Ronald Reagans reelection campaign. And it landed her in federal prison for 16 years. If there were any question whether Black Lives Matter has ideological ties to the Communist terrorists of the 1960s, the story of Susan Rosenberg should put that issue to bed... Rosenberg, who started out as a member of the 1960s revolutionary group Weather Underground, graduated into even more violent, and arguably successful, forms of terrorism in the 1970s and 1980s -- including bombings at an FBI field office in Staten Island, the Navy Yard Officers Club in Washington, DC, and even the U.S. Capitol building, where she damaged a representation of the greatest of the Democrat defenders of slavery, John C. Calhoun. She currently serves as human and prisoner rights advocate and a vice chair of the board of directors of Thousand Currents. Thousand Currents is undoubtedly very closely linked to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the broader Black Lives Matter movement. The Thousand Currents website outlines the relationship between the two entities: outlines "In 2016, BLM Global Network approached Thousand Currents to create a fiscal sponsorship agreement. Thousand Currents, a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt nonprofit organization, provides the legal and administrative framework to enable BLM to fulfill its mission. Fiscal sponsorship is a common structure utilized by nonprofit organizations. Oftentimes, nonprofit initiatives seek fiscal sponsorship to be able to have the fiscal sponsor handle administrative operations while the organization focuses on its programs and builds up its own organizational infrastructure. In this capacity, we provide administrative and back office support, including finance, accounting, grants management, insurance, human resources, legal and compliance." Descriptions of Thousand Currents as an organization which "handles fundraising" for Black Lives Matter were therefore accurate. As recently as June 24, the date on which the Capital Research Center published their report, the Thousand Currents website listed Susan Rosenberg as vice chair of the organization's board of directors, describing her as a "human and prison rights advocate and writer." The entire "board of directors" page has since been removed from the site. describing According to tax documents obtained by Snopes, Rosenberg sat on the board of directors during the 2015 and 2016 financial years, and was elevated to the position of vice chair in 2017. We asked Thousand Currents for the dates of Rosenberg's tenure on the board, and as its vice chair, and invited the organization to comment on the ongoing controversy, and will update this story if we receive a response. 2015 2016 2017 Rosenberg's prominent position within Thousand Currents is clear, as are that organization's close links to the Black Lives Matter Global Network (and thereby the broader Black Lives Matter movement). However, the question of whether she should be described as a "terrorist" or "convicted terrorist" is much more complicated. Originally from New York City, Rosenberg was an active member of several revolutionary left-wing groups and movements during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In November 1984, she was arrested in Cherry Hill, New Jersey after police said she and an associate, Timothy Blunk, were found transferring 740 pounds of explosives, an Uzi submachine gun, an M-14 rifle, a rifle with a telescopic sight, a sawed-off shotgun, three 9-millimeter handguns and boxes of ammunition from a car into a storage locker. said Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards." charges In May 1985, New Jersey U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Bernard Lacey gave Rosenberg and Blunk the maximum available sentence of 58 years each in prison. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted Rosenberg's sentence, and she was released from prison. sentence commuted According to several contemporaneous news reports, Rosenberg had previously been charged with multiple offenses as part of a major 1982 conspiracy case against several prominent left-wing revolutionaries. Along with the others, Rosenberg was charged with conspiracy and racketeering offenses in connection with the following incidents: incidents The most high-profile incident was the October 1981 Brink's robbery in Nyack, New York. Several members of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army groups were accused of having orchestrated and carried out the violent robbery of a Brink's armored vehicle at the Nanuet Mall, stealing total of $1.6 million. In the course of a police chase and shootout, two police officers and a Brink's guard were killed. The money was recovered. Specifically, Rosenberg was accused of having driven one of the getaway cars. killed accused After Rosenberg's arrest in New Jersey in 1984, and her subsequent conviction and imprisonment on the weapons and explosives possession charges, prosecutors dropped the conspiracy and racketeering charges against her, and she was never tried or convicted in relation to the 1981 Brink's robbery, the 1979 Shakur prison escape, or other armed robberies. The prosecutor who oversaw the decision not to proceed with that case, in the 1980s, was Rudolph Giuliani, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. After Rosenberg's release in 2001, Giuliani, by then Mayor of New York City, told the New York Times the charges were dropped because her existing 58-year prison sentence made a further prosecution unnecessary. told In 1988, Rosenberg was charged with aiding and abetting a series of bombings which took place between 1983 and 1985, at the Capitol building, Fort McNair, the Washington Navy Yard Computer Center and the Washington Navy Yard Officers' Club, all in Washington, D.C. Bombs were also planted, but did not detonate, at several sites in New York: the FBI's office in Staten Island, the Israeli Aircraft Industries building, the South African consulate and the New York Patrolmen's Benevolent Association. However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign. The claim, made in @asdomke's tweet, that Rosenberg was "convicted of" several 1983 bombings, was therefore false. The claim in the headline of an article on Wayne Dupree's website that Rosenberg "carried out" the bombings stands in contrast to the fact that she was never tried or convicted in relation to those incidents. dropped During her 16-year incarceration, Rosenberg renounced the use of political violence, though her political beliefs appear not to have changed significantly. In a radio interview shortly after her release in January 2001, she said she "rejects" the "potential for violence in my past actions," saying her view of violence as a strategic tool had undergone an "enormous change," but that she retained "a political view that is certainly progressive and radical in a certain sense." interview In her 2011 memoir, she recounted what she said during an unsuccessful 1997 parole application: recounted "I outlined my criminal acts and what I felt about them then and now. I talked about the political ethos of the 1960s and how it had led me and my associates into thinking our activities were acceptable. I detailed how sorry I felt now, how I accepted responsibility for my past actions, and how I would never commit any crimes again. I tried to put my life within the context of the historical period when many Americans thought they could change the world and end war and racism and poverty. I tried to distinguish between my core values and my embrace of the use of political violence. I stated that I now rejected the use of violence. I meant all that I said." There is no single, universally-accepted definition of terrorism, so any use of that label requires a degree of explanation or justification. One basis upon which one might reasonably describe a person as a terrorist is if they have been convicted of terrorist offenses. That is not true of Rosenberg, who was convicted only of weapons and explosives possession and fraudulent document possession, after her arrest in New Jersey 1984. She pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the 1980s bombing campaign, and those charges against her were dropped, and she has denied any involvement in the 1979 Shakur prison break and 1981 Brink's robbery, with those charges also having been dropped. not guilty denied The United States Code defines "domestic terrorism" (as distinct from "international terrorism") as follows: defines "... Activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States ..." However, that definition was only added in 1992, years after Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosives possession and charged for her alleged role in the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, and her alleged role in a series of armed robberies by left-wing revolutionaries. added In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg's activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as such does not exist In the 1988 indictment relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, prosecutors accused Rosenberg and others of trying "to influence, change and protest policies and practices of the United States Government concerning various international and domestic matters through the use of violent and illegal means." That language is remarkably similar to that found in the present U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism as seeking to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ..." accused Examining the 1980s bombings retrospectively, one might very well be justified as describing them as a campaign of domestic terrorism, even if prosecutors were not in a position to hang that label on them at the time. However, the charges against Rosenberg were dropped anyway, and she was never convicted in relation to the bombing campaign. In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that "there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives" with which she and Blunk were caught. However, it's clear they were transporting and transferring them for a purpose that was at the very least broadly associated with the group's wider mission of opposing various U.S. government policies and carrying out a socialist uprising. "We were stockpiling arms for the distant revolution that we all had convinced ourselves would come soon," she added. wrote Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings: "We thought that by taking armed actions against government property (including bombing unoccupied government buildings), we would show that despite the power of the state, it was possible to oppose it." indicated One could reasonably argue that Rosenberg's actions in the explosives possession case served her and her comrades' overarching mission of militant opposition to U.S. government policy and broader power structures and were in keeping with the group's (if not Rosenberg's) proven record of using bomb attacks to influence the wider American public and advance their cause. As such, a supportable (though not definitive) case exists for claiming that the crimes of which Rosenberg was convicted in 1985 were indeed acts of domestic terrorism. Crane, Missy. "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC." WayneDupree.com. 28 June 2020. Kerr, Andrew. "A Convicted Terrorist Sits on Board of Charity Handling Black Lives Matter Fundraising." The Daily Caller. 27 June 2020. O'Reilly, Bill. "Does Karl Marx Matter?" BillOReilly.com. 5 July 2020. Walter, Scott. "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group." Capital Research Center. 24 June 2020. Raab, Selwyn. "Radical Fugitive in Brink's Robbery Arrested." The New York Times. 1 December 1984. The Associated Press/The Philadelphia Daily News. "2 Revolutionaries Get 58 Years Each in N.J." 20 May 1985. Barbanel, Josh. "4 Indicted by U.S. in Escape of Joanne Chesimard in '79." The New York Times. 19 November 1982. Barbanel, Josh. "3 Killed in Armored Car Holdup." The New York Times. 21 October 1981. Gross, Jane. "Brink's Suspect Held Without Bail After She Refuses to Enter a Plea." The New York Times. 14 May 1985. Lipton, Eric. "Officials Criticize Clinton's Pardon of an Ex-Terrorist." The New York Times. 22 January 2001. The Associated Press/The New York Times. "3 Radicals Agree to Please Guilty in Bombing Case." 6 September 1990. Rosenberg, Susan. "An American Radical..." Citadel Press. 2011. Legal Information Institute, Cornell Law School. "United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 113B, Section 2331 -- Definitions." Accessed 14 July 2020. McCord, Mary B. "It's Time for Congress to Make Domestic Terrorism a Federal Crime." Lawfare. 5 December 2018. Shenon, Philip. "U.S. Charges 7 in the Bombing at U.S. Capitol." The New York Times. 12 May 1988.

NEI

In June, the website of right-leaning talk radio host Wayne Dupree posted an article with the headline "Report: Leader of Group Handling 'BLM Fundraising' is a Convicted Terrorist Who Carried Out Bombings in NYC and DC." Similar articles were published by the Daily Caller (an article that was republished by the Western Journal) and on the website of former Fox News pundit Bill O'Reilly. On July 9, 2020, Tucker Carlson ran a segment about Rosenberg's past and her connection to Thousand Currents and the Black Lives Matter movement on his Fox News show. Those posts and articles were largely based on a June 24, 2020, report published by the right-leaning Capital Research Center, which carried the headline "A Terrorist's Ties to a Leading Black Lives Matter Group." The report went on to state that:Thousand Currents is undoubtedly very closely linked to the Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation, a Delaware-registered entity that is one of the leading formal embodiments of the broader Black Lives Matter movement. The Thousand Currents website outlines the relationship between the two entities:As recently as June 24, the date on which the Capital Research Center published their report, the Thousand Currents website listed Susan Rosenberg as vice chair of the organization's board of directors, describing her as a "human and prison rights advocate and writer." The entire "board of directors" page has since been removed from the site.According to tax documents obtained by Snopes, Rosenberg sat on the board of directors during the 2015 and 2016 financial years, and was elevated to the position of vice chair in 2017. We asked Thousand Currents for the dates of Rosenberg's tenure on the board, and as its vice chair, and invited the organization to comment on the ongoing controversy, and will update this story if we receive a response.Originally from New York City, Rosenberg was an active member of several revolutionary left-wing groups and movements during the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. In November 1984, she was arrested in Cherry Hill, New Jersey after police said she and an associate, Timothy Blunk, were found transferring 740 pounds of explosives, an Uzi submachine gun, an M-14 rifle, a rifle with a telescopic sight, a sawed-off shotgun, three 9-millimeter handguns and boxes of ammunition from a car into a storage locker.Rosenberg was tried and convicted on the following charges: "Conspiracy to possess unregistered firearms, receive firearms and explosives shipped in interstate commerce while a fugitive, and unlawfully use false identification documents ...; possession of unregistered destructive devices, possession of unregistered firearm (two counts) ...; carrying explosives during commission of a felony ... ; possession with intent to unlawfully use false identification documents...; false representation of Social Security number, possession of counterfeit Social Security cards."In May 1985, New Jersey U.S. District Court Judge Frederick Bernard Lacey gave Rosenberg and Blunk the maximum available sentence of 58 years each in prison. On Jan. 20, 2001, his last day in office, President Bill Clinton commuted Rosenberg's sentence, and she was released from prison.According to several contemporaneous news reports, Rosenberg had previously been charged with multiple offenses as part of a major 1982 conspiracy case against several prominent left-wing revolutionaries. Along with the others, Rosenberg was charged with conspiracy and racketeering offenses in connection with the following incidents:The most high-profile incident was the October 1981 Brink's robbery in Nyack, New York. Several members of the Weather Underground and Black Liberation Army groups were accused of having orchestrated and carried out the violent robbery of a Brink's armored vehicle at the Nanuet Mall, stealing total of $1.6 million. In the course of a police chase and shootout, two police officers and a Brink's guard were killed. The money was recovered. Specifically, Rosenberg was accused of having driven one of the getaway cars.The prosecutor who oversaw the decision not to proceed with that case, in the 1980s, was Rudolph Giuliani, then U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. After Rosenberg's release in 2001, Giuliani, by then Mayor of New York City, told the New York Times the charges were dropped because her existing 58-year prison sentence made a further prosecution unnecessary.However, prosecutors dropped those charges in 1990 as part of a plea deal involving other suspects in the bombings. As a result, Rosenberg was never tried or convicted on any charges relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign. The claim, made in @asdomke's tweet, that Rosenberg was "convicted of" several 1983 bombings, was therefore false. The claim in the headline of an article on Wayne Dupree's website that Rosenberg "carried out" the bombings stands in contrast to the fact that she was never tried or convicted in relation to those incidents.During her 16-year incarceration, Rosenberg renounced the use of political violence, though her political beliefs appear not to have changed significantly. In a radio interview shortly after her release in January 2001, she said she "rejects" the "potential for violence in my past actions," saying her view of violence as a strategic tool had undergone an "enormous change," but that she retained "a political view that is certainly progressive and radical in a certain sense."In her 2011 memoir, she recounted what she said during an unsuccessful 1997 parole application:There is no single, universally-accepted definition of terrorism, so any use of that label requires a degree of explanation or justification. One basis upon which one might reasonably describe a person as a terrorist is if they have been convicted of terrorist offenses. That is not true of Rosenberg, who was convicted only of weapons and explosives possession and fraudulent document possession, after her arrest in New Jersey 1984. She pleaded not guilty to charges relating to the 1980s bombing campaign, and those charges against her were dropped, and she has denied any involvement in the 1979 Shakur prison break and 1981 Brink's robbery, with those charges also having been dropped.The United States Code defines "domestic terrorism" (as distinct from "international terrorism") as follows:However, that definition was only added in 1992, years after Rosenberg was convicted of weapons and explosives possession and charged for her alleged role in the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, and her alleged role in a series of armed robberies by left-wing revolutionaries.In any event, despite the existence of a definition of domestic terrorism in federal law, a discrete criminal offense of domestic terrorism does not exist, and did not exist in the 1980s. As a result, even if Rosenberg's activities perfectly met the definition of domestic terrorism currently set out in federal law, and even if that definition existed in the 1980s, she could not have been charged with, tried for and convicted of domestic terrorism as suchIn the 1988 indictment relating to the 1983-1985 bombing campaign, prosecutors accused Rosenberg and others of trying "to influence, change and protest policies and practices of the United States Government concerning various international and domestic matters through the use of violent and illegal means." That language is remarkably similar to that found in the present U.S. Code definition of domestic terrorism as seeking to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping ..."In her memoir, Rosenberg wrote of her 1984 arrest in New Jersey that "there was no immediate, specific plan to use the explosives" with which she and Blunk were caught. However, it's clear they were transporting and transferring them for a purpose that was at the very least broadly associated with the group's wider mission of opposing various U.S. government policies and carrying out a socialist uprising. "We were stockpiling arms for the distant revolution that we all had convinced ourselves would come soon," she added.Earlier in her book, Rosenberg indicated that she was comfortable, at least at one point in time, with bombing government buildings: "We thought that by taking armed actions against government property (including bombing unoccupied government buildings), we would show that despite the power of the state, it was possible to oppose it."

FMD_train_449

Donald Trump Donated Play-Doh, Other Items to Louisiana Flood Victims?

08/19/2016

Example: [Collected via Twitter, August 2016] Origins: On 19 August 2016, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump traveled to Louisiana to survey property damaged by recent flood waters. While Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards warned Trump that this visit should not be turned into a campaign photo-op, the news media managed to snap at least one photograph of Trump unloading a box of Play-Doh brand modeling clay from a truck at the Church International in St. Amant. photo-op The picture was widely spread on social media and gave many the impression that Trump had donated nothing but Play-Doh to help those who had lost homes to the floods in Louisiana: The GOP nominee did not at the time issue a press release detailing what items he donated, nor how those donations were funded. (Were these personal donations? Did he collect items from supporters? Did the campaign pay for them?) Regardless, although Trump did donate Play-Doh modeling clay to flood victims in Louisiana, that was not his only donation to those in need, as a video of his helping to unload a truck clearly shows that the donations included much more than just Play-Doh: Play-Doh, diapers, baby formula, various toys, cleaning supplies and socks can be seen in the above-displayed video. A CNN report also noted that Trump had donated blankets and school supplies. noted In addition to questioning the contents of Trump's donation, some were skeptical that the candidate had donated anything at all, claiming that Trump merely helped to unload a truck of supplies donated by another organization. However, CNN and The Creole, the latter an online news source for Ascension Parish in Louisiana, reported that Trump himself had "donated" an 18-wheeler full of supplies: reported Trump spent approximately 20-25 minutes inside the command center and asked a lot of questions, according to [St. Amant Fire Chief James E.] LeBlanc. He also donated a 18-wheeler full of supplies and expressed concern for residents, damage to homes, how much water was in the area and if any assistance had been given by the federal government. A church spokesperson also confirmed that the supplies were donated by Donald Trump: We are responding to your email inquiring about the video showing Donald Trump unloading supplies at our church. These supplies were donated by Donald Trump. Although a specific list of donated items was not available, the candidate clearly assisted in providing more than just Play-Doh to the people of Louisiana. In August 2017, interest in this item was re-ignited amid debate about the President Trump's response to Houston flood victims following Hurricane Harvey. response Hurricane Harvey

NEI

Origins: On 19 August 2016, Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump traveled to Louisiana to survey property damaged by recent flood waters. While Louisiana Governor John Bel Edwards warned Trump that this visit should not be turned into a campaign photo-op, the news media managed to snap at least one photograph of Trump unloading a box of Play-Doh brand modeling clay from a truck at the Church International in St. Amant. Play-Doh, diapers, baby formula, various toys, cleaning supplies and socks can be seen in the above-displayed video. A CNN report also noted that Trump had donated blankets and school supplies.In addition to questioning the contents of Trump's donation, some were skeptical that the candidate had donated anything at all, claiming that Trump merely helped to unload a truck of supplies donated by another organization. However, CNN and The Creole, the latter an online news source for Ascension Parish in Louisiana, reported that Trump himself had "donated" an 18-wheeler full of supplies:In August 2017, interest in this item was re-ignited amid debate about the President Trump's response to Houston flood victims following Hurricane Harvey.

FMD_train_561

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

04/07/2021

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

True

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

FMD_train_611

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

04/18/2013

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

True

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

FMD_train_1571

Is the meme an accurate portrayal of 'the significance of Kamala Harris being Vice President'?

01/27/2021

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency. Inauguration Day The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president). Charles Curtis The meme also highlighted several purported landmarks in the slow progress of women's rights and racial desegregation in the United States, as follows: Dont understand why its a big deal that Kamala Harris is VP? Until Red box? She would have been enslaved. Until Blue box? She couldnt vote. Until Yellow box? She had to attend a segregated school. Until Green one? She couldnt have her own bank account. The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021: popularity The vice presidents highlighted in various colors were as follows (along with the dates of their tenure as vice president): Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865 Andrew Johnson Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923 Calvin Coolidge Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961 Richard Nixon Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973 Spiro Agnew The claims made in the meme were therefore that: until Johnson's tenure as vice president (in 1865), Harris would have been enslaved due to her racial heritage; until Coolidge's tenure as vice president (1921 to 1923), she would have been denied the right to vote due to her gender; until Nixon's tenure as vice president (1953 to 1961), she would have been forced to attend a segregated school due to her racial heritage; and until Agnew's tenure as vice president (1969 to 1973), she would have been denied the right to her own bank account, due to her status as a married woman. On the whole, the claims contained a high degree of historical accuracy, though in some cases they over-simplified certain discriminatory practices and made some relatively minor errors in identifying the vice president in office during certain major reforms. As a result, we're issuing a rating of "true." The following is our assessment of each of those claims. The creator of the meme appears to have chosen the year 1865, and therefore the tenure of Johnson, because that is the year in which the 13th Amendment, which outlawed slavery, was passed. The text of the amendment reads as follows: text Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. Congress passed the amendment in January 1865, while Johnson was vice president-elect to President-elect Abraham Lincoln, but it was not ratified by the states until December 1865, by which time Johnson had ascended to the presidency after Lincoln's assassination, leaving the vice presidency vacant for the duration of his presidency. So the sequence of events is a bit muddled, but it is certainly reasonable to place the 13th Amendment, and the abolition of slavery, during the Johnson era. Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves. page 14 Slavery was far more prevalent in the southern states, but on average, a Black woman in the U.S. shortly before the 13th Amendment had close to a 90% likelihood of being enslaved. From a human rights perspective, Black people had no legal or constitutional protection from slavery, which is likely the thrust of the point made in the meme. The 19th Amendment, which gave women the right to vote, was passed by Congress in June 1919 and ratified by the states in August 1920. The text of the amendment read: text The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively. Thomas Riley Marshall That inaccuracy does not impinge upon the truth of the broader point being made in the meme, namely that Harris, as a woman, would not have been able to vote in the United States until the early 1920s. However, the meme does miss an important additional barrier to voting rights that Harris, as a Black woman, could have faced even after the passage of the 19th Amendment. While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses" all of which were designed to suppress Black voters. 15th Amendment obstacles It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color. Voting Rights Act argue The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed." declared follow-up ruling Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate. battles So while the meme was right to point out that Black students would be very likely forced to attend segregated schools before the decision in Brown vs. the Board of Education, it's also the case that many Black students were forced to attend segregated schools for many years after the ruling, as well. What changed in 1954 was that the nation's highest court clearly declared that system of racial segregation to be unconstitutional. The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that: stated It shall be unlawful for any creditor to discriminate against any applicant, with respect to any aspect of a credit transaction(1) on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex or marital status, or age (provided the applicant has the capacity to contract)... However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on. and did The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending: report What the ECOA changed in 1974, and what the meme appears to allude to, is that banks and lenders could no longer legally engage in such discriminatory practices.

True

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here.On Inauguration Day, Kamala Harris made history several times over. In being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2021, the outgoing California senator became the first Black person, first woman, and first person of South Asian heritage to be elevated to the vice presidency. The historic nature of her achievement was placed in stark context in a viral meme that showed Harris, whose parents immigrated to the United States from India and Jamaica, respectively, juxtaposed with a long list of official portraits of white men. (Charles Curtis, who served with Herbert Hoover from 1929 to 1933, had some Native American heritage and was therefore the first person of color to hold the office of vice president).The following screenshot shows a selection of instances of the meme on Facebook and demonstrates its popularity on social media in January 2021:Red: Andrew Johnson, March 4 to April 15,1865Blue: Calvin Coolidge, March 4, 1921, to Aug. 3, 1923Yellow: Richard Nixon, Jan. 20, 1953, to Jan. 20, 1961Green: Spiro Agnew, Jan. 20, 1969, to Oct. 10, 1973The text of the amendment reads as follows: Until the passing of the 13th Amendment, Black people in the United States lacked legal protection against enslavement. That doesn't mean that all Black people before 1865 were slaves, but the vast majority were. Based on figures included in the 1860 U.S. Census (page 14), some 89% of Black people in the country at that time were slaves.The text of the amendment read:On both those dates, Thomas Riley Marshall was vice president, under President Woodrow Wilson. So the meme was incorrect in stating that women could not vote until the vice presidency of Calvin Coolidge. In fact, women voted for the first time in the November 1920 election, which saw Warren Harding and his running mate Coolidge elected president and vice president, respectively. While the 15th Amendment in principle gave Black men the right to vote, and the 19th Amendment gave all women the right to vote, states continued to discriminate against Black voters by imposing obstacles such as poll taxes, literacy tests, and "grandfather clauses" all of which were designed to suppress Black voters.It wasn't until the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that such practices were prohibited by federal law, although many activists argue that present-day voter-ID rules continue the legacy of electoral restrictions that have a disproportionate impact on voters of color.The creator of the meme appears to have selected the vice presidency of Nixon (1953 to 1961) because that was the period during which the U.S. Supreme Court declared racial segregation in public schools constituted a violation of the Equal Protection clause in the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, in the landmark 1954 ruling in Brown vs. the Board of Education. In a follow-up ruling in 1955, the court ordered school districts to arrange for the desegregation of public schools "with all deliberate speed." Most, though not all, schools were racially segregated in the 19th and early-20th centuries in the United States. So a Black student, such as Harris, would very likely have been forced to "attend a segregated school," as the meme claims. Brown vs. the Board of Education marked the beginning of the end of school segregation, but it did not bring about integration overnight. Over the course of the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, state lawmakers and local authorities fought protracted and often bitter battles to resist the Supreme Court's clear mandate.The meme appears to refer to the enactment of the Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) in the early 1970s, which made it illegal for financial services companies to discriminate against customers on the basis of anything other than their creditworthiness. The legislation stated that:However, the law wasn't enacted until October 1974, when the office of vice president was vacant. Spiro Agnew resigned in late 1973, after he was charged with bribery and tax fraud, and his replacement, Gerald Ford, ascended to the presidency in August 1974, after Nixon resigned. So the meme is again mistaken on the precise sequence of events. While Agnew was vice president, banks could (and did) legally deny credit to a woman on the basis of extraneous considerations such as her marital status, her husband's income and credit history, and so on.The meme also somewhat overstated the restrictions in place before 1974. Women, including married women, could open their own bank accounts before the ECOA was passed, but often faced difficulty and discrimination in doing so. It was particularly difficult for women to obtain a line of credit or a credit card, in her own name. In 1972, the National Commission on Consumer Finance published a report that found the following common discriminatory practices in lending:

FMD_train_1939

Dogs as Shark Bait?

10/19/2005

Examples: [Hepburn, 2005] Stray dogs are being skewered on hooks and dragged behind boats as live shark bait. The cruel practice takes place on French-controlled Reunion Island in the Indian Ocean, where Prince William spent two holidays. A six-month-old labrador pup was recently found ALIVE with a huge double hook through its snout like the dog above and another through a leg. The pup was found in a coastal creek and is thought to have somehow freed itself from a fishing line. But other dogs and kittens have been chomped up and swallowed by sharks. The RSPCA plans to petition the French government, demanding an end to the hideous torture. [Collected on the Internet, September 2012] PETITION: Please help stop French Islander and Mexican fishermen using live dogs and kittens as shark bait To: The French and Mexican Governments We have to stop this PLEASE help! French Islanders using live puppies and kittens as shark bait?? Please stop this senseless abuse to innocent puppies and kittens. French Islander and Mexican fishermen are using LIVE puppies and kittens as shark bait!! No living being should have to undergo this torture and insurmountable fear! This is inhumane and must stop NOW. Together we can make a difference and let our voice be heard as ONE. Please sign this petition and please pass this along. Thank you for caring. Blessed be Currently the penalty is only 2 years and $36,000 that is far too little for such a heinous crime. We urge that you raise the penalty to 10 years in prison with NO parole and a fine of $100,000. This will hopefully act as a deterrent and will stop these horrendous acts against innocent animals. Please do the right thing and help us stop these people. Islanders on the French controlled Reunion Island have been using live dogs as shark bait. The Sun claims that a six-month-old labrador pup was recently found alive with a huge double hook through its snout like the dog above and another through a leg. It is also claimed that local fisherman have also been using kittens! Reunion Island is an overseas dpartements of France and an official region of France, giving it the same status as a province or state in other countries. The claim that live dogs (and cats) were being used as bait by shark fisherman on Runion Island (a French-controlled territory just off the coast of Southern Africa in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar) started hitting the world press in August 2005 and picked up steam in early October 2005, when it was reported by publications such as the UK's Sun (an excerpt from which is quoted at the head of this page) and Sweden's Aftonbladet, complete with a heart-rending picture of a purported "bait dog" with a large hook through its muzzle. Animal rights groups such as the RSPCA have taken up the cause of putting a stop to the horrible practice. Runion Island Sun Aftonbladet RSPCA Many observers remain skeptical of such claims, however, positing theories that range from media and animal rights groups having been taken in by a hoax to a deliberate disinformation campaign being waged by activists who seek to end the slaughter of sharks for their fins and cartilage by Indian Ocean fisherman. Arguments have flown back and forth over the practicality and plausibility (or lack thereof) of Runion Islanders fishing for sharks in the manner described. activists A 2006 Runion newspaper article acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman (and amateur fisherman) on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, suggesting that although there may be some truth to the shark-fishing claim, the practice does not appear to be as widespread or horrific (or tolerated) as implied by news reports in the foreign press. Rather than describing hordes of shark fisherman impaling live dogs on hooks and dragging them behind boats as shark bait, the article noted that employing dogs in shark-fishing was largely the province of a small group of amateur fisherman rather than large numbers of professionals, that the dogs used were generally dead animals picked up from roadsides or culled from the island's large population of unwanted strays (estimated at 150,000), and that the no-longer-alive animals were attached to unattended buoyed "shark trap" platforms rather than dragged alive behind boats. article The French embassy in Washington, D.C., also maintained that although the practice was not unknown, its occurrence and acceptance was not nearly as prevalent as recent news reports had made it seem: Dear Sir/Madam,Thank you for writing to us with your concerns. We too denounce the barbaric practices you refer to. Such acts are obviously illegal and will not be tolerated on French territory. But while we share your revulsion, we would like to emphasize that the practice of using live dogs or cats as shark bait is in fact exceptional and isolated. It was never widespread nor traditional, but introduced by ruthless individuals, and has been strictly banned for decades now. TV reports that raised initial indignation when they were aired in France and abroad in 2005 were filmed locally in 2003 following the discovery of a mutilated dog. The last few months have seen two identical events which received heavy media coverage (one of these events was soon determined to be a false alarm). But can these vile occurrences lead us to conclude that there is an ongoing tradition of barbarism on Reunion Island? Reunion Island, a French territory and a European region, obeys the laws and regulations of the French Republic and the European Union. It respects the rule of law and does not practice inhumane ancestral practices. The facts that elicited your complaint are the act of a few isolated, irresponsible parties who are being sought by the police and will be brought to justice. The authorities on the island are closely monitoring the situation; one person is in custody and appeared in court on Friday September 30, 2005. All suspicions of such acts will be investigated, and animal protection organizations that have any specific information on these matters are strongly encouraged to inform French police authorities. The French minister for agriculture and fisheries, Dominique Bussereau, is fully aware of the media and public outcry regarding this issue, and has written to the French National Assembly to emphasize that several measures have been taken to strengthen already existing laws. Veterinarians have been directed to immediately report any suspicious wounds to authorities, and the police will increase their inspections of fishing and pleasure vessels. Meanwhile, a sterilization campaign, launched in 2001 to reduce the number of stray dogs and cats on the island, continues. Animal rights are an important issue in France: over half of French households have at least one pet, and France has some of the world's most stringent animal rights legislation. French law provides for the prosecution of those who are cruel to animals. Voluntary cruelty to animals is punishable by a sentence of two years in prison and a 30,000 euro fine (equivalent to about $36,000). Sincerely, Press Office.Cordialement / RegardsService de Presse et d'Information / Press & Information ServiceAmbassade de France / Embassy of FranceWashington, D.C. The photo displayed at the top of this page, which has adorned several news articles and humane society-related web pages on this topic, is a frame from a 2005 video produced by the 30 Million Friends Foundation. The video purportedly documents the case of a dog that had escaped from fishermen who planned to use it as shark bait; skeptics have questioned the authenticity of the video, maintaining that it merely shows the aftermath of an accidental entanglement that has been mistakenly or deceptively misused for publicity's sake. video A similar video purporting to document the practice using kittens as shark bait appears to be a hoax, intercutting shots of kittens' being dunked in water and dangled from wires with unrelated footage of ocean fishing activity: Hepburn, Ian. Dogs Used as Shark Bait. The Sun. 1 October 2005. Mott, Maryann. Dogs Used as Shark Bait on French Island. National Geographic News. 19 October 2005. Aftonbladet. Valpen Skulle Bli Hajmat. 2 October 2005. Clicanoo. Lhomme, Le Meilleur Ennemi du Chien. 30 September 2005.

NEI

The claim that live dogs (and cats) were being used as bait by shark fisherman on Runion Island (a French-controlled territory just off the coast of Southern Africa in the Indian Ocean, east of Madagascar) started hitting the world press in August 2005 and picked up steam in early October 2005, when it was reported by publications such as the UK's Sun (an excerpt from which is quoted at the head of this page) and Sweden's Aftonbladet, complete with a heart-rending picture of a purported "bait dog" with a large hook through its muzzle. Animal rights groups such as the RSPCA have taken up the cause of putting a stop to the horrible practice.Many observers remain skeptical of such claims, however, positing theories that range from media and animal rights groups having been taken in by a hoax to a deliberate disinformation campaign being waged by activists who seek to end the slaughter of sharks for their fins and cartilage by Indian Ocean fisherman. Arguments have flown back and forth over the practicality and plausibility (or lack thereof) of Runion Islanders fishing for sharks in the manner described.A 2006 Runion newspaper article acknowledged the practice and reported the recent prosecution of a deliveryman (and amateur fisherman) on that island over animal cruelty charges associated with the described activity, suggesting that although there may be some truth to the shark-fishing claim, the practice does not appear to be as widespread or horrific (or tolerated) as implied by news reports in the foreign press. Rather than describing hordes of shark fisherman impaling live dogs on hooks and dragging them behind boats as shark bait, the article noted that employing dogs in shark-fishing was largely the province of a small group of amateur fisherman rather than large numbers of professionals, that the dogs used were generally dead animals picked up from roadsides or culled from the island's large population of unwanted strays (estimated at 150,000), and that the no-longer-alive animals were attached to unattended buoyed "shark trap" platforms rather than dragged alive behind boats.The photo displayed at the top of this page, which has adorned several news articles and humane society-related web pages on this topic, is a frame from a 2005 video produced by the 30 Million Friends Foundation. The video purportedly documents the case of a dog that had escaped from fishermen who planned to use it as shark bait; skeptics have questioned the authenticity of the video, maintaining that it merely shows the aftermath of an accidental entanglement that has been mistakenly or deceptively misused for publicity's sake.

FMD_train_1273

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

10/11/2015

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

True

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

FMD_train_159

Was foreign aid included in the second COVID-19 stimulus package?

12/23/2020

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. A massive federal spending bill passed by the United States Congress on Dec. 21, 2020, was almost 5,600 pages long, so there was plenty for everyone to debate. However, social media was full of misleading outrage, framing the legislation as a COVID-19 stimulus package that doled out foreign aid unrelated to the pandemic. In fact, what Congress passed was a $2.3 trillion spending bill that funds the U.S. government through the 2021 fiscal year. The bill includes a $900 billion coronavirus relief package, not the other way around. Yet many framed the story in reverse, claiming that Congress had passed a coronavirus relief package and opportunistically included foreign aid and other unrelated items. For example, conservative bloggers Diamond and Silk tweeted, "What does $10 million going to Pakistan for gender programs have to do with [coronavirus] relief for Americans?" Many other social media users posted similar sentiments. Claims that Congress jammed foreign aid and museum funding into coronavirus economic relief are misleading. It's more accurate to say Congress passed a $2.3 trillion omnibus spending bill funding the entirety of the U.S. government, including foreign aid programs, national museum funding, and a coronavirus relief package. For example, the $10 million in aid to Pakistan for "gender programs" is slated under U.S. State Department funding in the omnibus bill, along with a number of other foreign aid programs. The way the meme presents the $600 stimulus payments is also misleading because it juxtaposes the total aid for various countries and institutions included in the spending bill alongside individual payments to Americans in the coronavirus relief package. The coronavirus relief package includes $600 stimulus checks, which will be paid out to most Americans, but the total cost of these checks and other aid to Americans adds up to $900 billion. It's also misleading to state that the only benefit included in the bill for Americans is a check for $600. Although the amounts of financial assistance were less than what was provided in the first stimulus package in March 2020, the coronavirus relief package includes an expansion of unemployment benefits, another round of small business loans, as well as rent, utilities, and food assistance along with the $600 stimulus checks. Legislators complained they didn't have time to properly review the massive document before voting on it. Some legislators said the price tag for the legislative package was too big, while others argued that the relief provided to Americans struggling with the economic fallout from the pandemic didn't go far enough. On the evening of Dec. 22, 2020, the day after Congress passed the spending package, U.S. President Donald Trump made a statement echoing these internet claims, raising doubts that he would sign the legislation after the White House had already indicated he would. Among other statements, Trump said he wanted stimulus checks to be $2,000 instead of $600, which U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she agreed with. The bill comes nine months after the CARES Act stimulus package was signed in March 2020, following months of partisan haggling between Republicans, who wanted a more limited package, and Democrats, who had pushed for a bigger bill. It also comes amid a surge of reported COVID-19 cases during the holiday season. More than 322,000 Americans have died from the pandemic as of this writing.

NEI

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. But many framed the story in reverse, claiming that Congress had passed a coronavirus relief package and opportunistically included foreign aid and other unrelated items. For example, conservative bloggers Diamond and Silk tweeted, "what does 10M dollars going to Pakistan for gender programs have to do with [coronavirus] relief for Americans?" Many other social media users posted the following meme:Claims that Congress jammed foreign aid and museum funding into coronavirus economic relief are misleading. It's more accurate to say Congress passed a $2.3 trillion omnibus spending bill funding the entirety of the U.S. government, including foreign aid programs, national museum funding, and also a coronavirus relief package.It's also misleading to state that the only benefit included in the bill for Americans is a check for $600. Although the amounts of financial assistance were less than what was provided in first stimulus package in March 2020, the coronavirus relief package includes expansion of unemployment benefits, another round of small business loans, as well as rent, utilities, and food assistance along with $600 stimulus checks.Legislators complained they didn't have time to properly review the massive document before voting on it. Some legislators said the price tag for the legislative package was too big, while others said relief provided to Americans struggling with economic fallout from the pandemic didn't go far enough.On the evening of Dec. 22, 2020, the day after Congress passed the spending package, U.S. President Donald Trump made a statement echoing these internet claims, raising doubts that he would sign the legislation after the White House had already indicated he would. Among other statements, Trump said he wanted stimulus checks to be $2,000 instead of $600, which U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said she agreed with.The bill comes nine months after the CARES Act stimulus package was signed in March 2020, as well as months of partisan haggling between Republicans, who wanted a more limited package, and Democrats, who had pushed for a bigger bill. It also comes amid a surge of reported COVID-19 cases amid the holiday season. More than 322,000 Americans have died from the pandemic as of this writing.

FMD_train_908

Papa John's unwilling to distribute 'excessive profits' to its employees?

02/18/2016

On 18 February 2016, the Facebook page "I Acknowledge Class Warfare Exists" posted a meme featuring a photograph of Papa John's CEO John Schnatter along with a quote ostensibly uttered by him about not sharing company profits with employees: Although several web sites, such as AZ Quotes, Sherman's Wilderness, and the Straight Dopemessage board,have attributed this phrase to Schnatter, none of these web sites conclusively documents where or when Schnatter purportedly made this statement. In fact, our attempt to source this quote led us through a never-ending circle of memes; in the end, we found no record in any credible publication linking Schnatter to these words. AZ Quotes Sherman's Wilderness Straight Dope The quote was likely created in an attempt to paraphrase comments the Papa John's CEOmade in 2012, just before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act: comments "Our best estimate is that the Obamacare will cost 11 to 14 cents per pizza, or 15 to 20 cents per order from a corporate basis. "We're not supportive of Obamacare, like most businesses in our industry. But our business model and unit economics are about as ideal as you can get for a food company to absorb Obamacare. "If Obamacare is in fact not repealed, we will find tactics to shallow out any Obamacare costs and core strategies to pass that cost onto consumers in order to protect our shareholders best interest." In November 2012, Schnatter wrote an op-ed piecefor the Huffington Post, maintaining that some of his comments had been taken out of context. piece

False

Although several web sites, such as AZ Quotes, Sherman's Wilderness, and the Straight Dopemessage board,have attributed this phrase to Schnatter, none of these web sites conclusively documents where or when Schnatter purportedly made this statement. In fact, our attempt to source this quote led us through a never-ending circle of memes; in the end, we found no record in any credible publication linking Schnatter to these words.The quote was likely created in an attempt to paraphrase comments the Papa John's CEOmade in 2012, just before the implementation of the Affordable Care Act:In November 2012, Schnatter wrote an op-ed piecefor the Huffington Post, maintaining that some of his comments had been taken out of context.

FMD_train_1277

California is growing a hell of a lot faster than Texas.

12/19/2016

Stoking their long-running feud, California Gov. Jerry Brown recently jabbed at former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, saying that the Golden State is growing a lot faster than Texas. Brown made this claim during an impassioned defense of climate change science at the American Geophysical Union conference on Dec. 14, 2016, in San Francisco. "We've proved in California that the economy grows. And it grows in part because of the climate rules that we've adopted," Brown said. Perry, a climate change skeptic, was recently selected as U.S. energy secretary by President-elect Trump. While he was governor of Texas, he repeatedly visited California in an attempt to lure jobs to the Lone Star State, promising less regulation and lower costs. In his speech, Brown stated that Perry's critiques about California's job-killing red tape do not hold up. "Now remember our new secretary of energy, he was coming to California to say: Come to Texas because we have all the jobs in Texas. Well, Rick: I got some news for you, California is growing a lot faster than Texas, and we have more sun than you have oil!" Gov. Jerry Brown makes his claim about California growing a lot faster than Texas at about the 13:00 minute mark in the video above. With Brown's reference to Perry, we interpreted his claim to mean faster economic growth with a focus on jobs. We decided to zero in on job growth rates in California and Texas while also weighing GDP and unemployment trends in the states. We'll leave the fun comparison of sunshine to oil for Brown and Perry to wrestle with another day. Our research acknowledges that there is no definitive measure for what constitutes a "lot faster" growth. Still, we will do our best to assess the governor's claim. Brown's spokeswoman pointed us to several news articles detailing California's recent economic improvements. Looking solely at 2015 job growth rates, Brown's claim appears to hold up. In that year, California added 483,000 jobs, posting a job growth rate of 3 percent, based on data we analyzed from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That pace was twice as fast as Texas's 1.5 percent job growth rate. California's rapid employment gains have slowed somewhat to about 2 percent this year through November. While that may not qualify as a "lot faster," it is still greater than Texas's roughly 1.6 percent job growth rate so far this year. The business website Kiplinger.com forecast that California would rank 10th in the nation among states for the fastest job growth in 2016, noting that Texas was not on its Top 10 list. Not long ago, however, Texas outpaced California. In 2014, Texas recorded a 3.7 percent job growth rate, ahead of California's 2.9 percent pace. Looking to the future, California's job gains may slow. The closely watched UCLA Anderson Forecast predicts jobs will grow by only 1.5 percent in the state during 2017 and just 0.8 percent in 2018. Because Brown used the phrase "is growing," we will judge him based on the most recent figures, not future forecasts. Overall economy While the pace of job growth is important, it is not the only measurement of a state's economic health. Brown's claim could also be interpreted as California's overall economy, not just jobs, growing much faster than Texas's economy. In August, PolitiFact Texas took a deep look at the economies of both California and Texas to evaluate a June claim by Julián Castro, the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, that "Today, California is kicking our butt, creating more jobs and more economic growth than Texas." It rated the claim True, citing greater jobs, per capita income, and GDP growth rates in California, while noting that Texas had a lower jobless rate. Building on that fact check, we examined the most recent economic figures for both states to see if the assessment still holds. We found that California's GDP grew faster than Texas's in the first two quarters of this year, at rates of 2 percent and most recently 2.2 percent, compared with Texas's 1.3 percent and its most recent quarter, a negative 0.8 percent, according to a news release in December by the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis. It was a different story in 2015 when Texas's GDP expanded by 4.8 percent (a figure that was recently revised upward) compared with California's 3.8 percent GDP expansion. Comparing unemployment rates, Texas, at 4.6 percent in November, has consistently fared better than California, where the rate was 5.3 percent in November and has hovered well above 5 percent this year. California had one more economic bright spot in 2015: per capita personal income grew at twice the rate of Texas, 5.4 percent to 2.6 percent, according to federal data. Our ruling Gov. Jerry Brown recently claimed California is growing a lot faster than Texas. We interpreted this to mean economic growth with a focus on the pace of job creation. California's 3 percent job growth rate in 2015, which doubled Texas's pace, definitely supports Brown's colorful claim. However, California's rate has slowed to about 2 percent so far this year, which is closer to Texas's 1.6 percent job growth rate. Other economic metrics show California performing better than Texas in several categories, though not all: California's GDP expanded faster than Texas's GDP in the first two quarters of this year, although Texas had a faster GDP growth rate in 2015. Additionally, per capita income grew twice as fast in California as in Texas in 2015, further supporting Brown's statement. Texas, however, has consistently maintained a lower jobless rate than California in recent years. Brown, like the state's economy in recent years, is on the right track. Although California has expanded jobs and its economy faster than Texas in many instances, there are a few cases where that growth has been strong but not necessarily a "lot faster." We rate Brown's statement Mostly True.

True

In that year, California added 483,000 jobs, posting a jobs growth rate of 3 percent, based ondatawe crunched from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. That pace was twice as fast as Texas 1.5 percent job growth rate.The business website Kiplinger.com forecast California would rank10th in the nationamong states for fastest job growth in 2016. It noted that Texas was not on its Top 10 list.Looking to the future, Californias job gains may slow. The closely watchedUCLA Anderson Forecastpredicts jobs to grow by only 1.5 percent in the state during 2017 and just 0.8 percent in 2018.In August, PolitiFact Texas took adeep lookat the economies of both California and Texas to evaluate a June claim by Julin Castro, the U.S. secretary of Housing and Urban Development, that Today, California is kicking our butt, creating more jobs and more economic growth than Texas.We found that Californias GDP grew faster than Texas in the first two quarters of this year, at rates of 2 percent and most recently 2.2 percent compared with Texas 1.3 percent and its most recent quarter, a negative 0.8 percent, according toa news release in Decemberby the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis.Comparingunemployment rates, Texas, at 4.6 percent in November, has consistently fared better than California, where the rate was 5.3 percent in November, and has hovered well above 5 percent this year.California had one more economic bright spot in 2015: Per capita personal income grew at twice the rate as in Texas,5.4 percentto2.6 percent, according to federal data.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/158c502a-4b3e-463d-906f-529da13e2451

FMD_train_1400

Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden.

12/01/2014

Some conservatives are pushing Gov. Scott Walker to use his second term to enact much deeper changes in Wisconsin government. When Walker got to office, Wisconsin was one of the worst states in the country in which to do business, with one of the highest regulatory and tax burdens,Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation,wrote in the conservative National Reviewon Nov. 5, 2014. Some estimates now rate it as number 14 for doing business, but dont be deceived, Loyola wrote under the headline, Walkers Win: Why it was the most important GOP win in the country. He added: Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. As Walker ramps up exploration of a 2016 presidential campaign, lets check the claim about spending and taxation in the Badger state. Well take the easy part first. Taxes Walker and Republican legislators have approved a variety of tax freezes and cuts. In March 2014, we ratedTruea Walker claim that hes delivered $2 billion in tax cuts, mainly by reducing income tax rates and limiting local property tax hikes. But an Oct. 14, 2014report by the Tax Foundationranked Wisconsin among the highest 10 states for business taxes on a scale that included corporate, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes. Census figures on tax collections lag by two years, so they dont account for all of Walkers cuts. But the latest figures showed that property-tax and income-tax collections in Wisconsin run more than 25 percent above the national average,we reported. Theres ample evidence that Wisconsin is among the middle group of states when all sources of revenue are considered. But on taxes alone, the state remains closer to the top. Spending To back up his claim, Loyola, a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, pointed us to thestate expenditure study done in 2013 by the National Association of State Budget Officers. That report doesnt compute per-capita spending, but based on a survey of budget officials it shows a total spending figure from state revenues, federal aid and other sources. We did the math and it backs up the claim: In 2013, Wisconsin state budget spending was about $7,500 per capita compared to about $3,600 in Texas. The study comes from a respected trade group andother organizationsrefer to its findings. The study cautions, however: State governments have specific functional responsibilities that vary among states depending on the role of local governments in providing services. For example, in many states, the funding of elementary and secondary education is considered primarily a local function. We could not replicate the studys findings using U.S. Census surveys of state and local government finances. That Census data is preferred by researchers, though one drawback is that reporting of the data lags about two years. One researcher, Dale Knapp with the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, said the census figures are better because the Budget Officers study includes some things that we generally dont consider part of the state budget -- the biggest of which is state retirement payments. They also include unemployment payments, lottery prizes, and capital expenditures, which can vary from year to year. When looking just at state spending (and excluding transfers to local governments), Wisconsin state government spends 27.1% more per capita than Texas in 2011, Knapp found. We also asked the Wisconsin Budget Project to run comparisons. Tamarine Cornelius and Jon Peacock of the group told us that Wisconsin per capita direct general expenditures were $1,114 above that of Texas, or 15 percent. That was for state and local expenditures. Wisconsin ranked #21 among the states; Texas was #38. So neither group backs up the claim that Wisconsin state government spends 100% more -- twice as much -- as Wisconsin on a per-capita basis. Still, we found that the numbers in the study cited by Loyola were drawn from the annual financial reports published by Texas and Wisconsin. On a topic where various definitions of state budget are fair game, that gives his claim a reasonable basis. Our rating Wisconsins state budget is almost twice as large per person as the state budget of Texas, and even after billions in tax cuts, Wisconsins working families and businesses remain subject to a heavy tax burden. Loyolas on target on taxes, and cites a credible study on spending that is open to challenge but generally defensible. We rate his claim Mostly True.

True

When Walker got to office, Wisconsin was one of the worst states in the country in which to do business, with one of the highest regulatory and tax burdens,Mario Loyola, a senior fellow at the Texas Public Policy Foundation,wrote in the conservative National Reviewon Nov. 5, 2014.In March 2014, we ratedTruea Walker claim that hes delivered $2 billion in tax cuts, mainly by reducing income tax rates and limiting local property tax hikes.But an Oct. 14, 2014report by the Tax Foundationranked Wisconsin among the highest 10 states for business taxes on a scale that included corporate, individual income, sales, unemployment insurance and property taxes.Census figures on tax collections lag by two years, so they dont account for all of Walkers cuts. But the latest figures showed that property-tax and income-tax collections in Wisconsin run more than 25 percent above the national average,we reported.To back up his claim, Loyola, a University of Wisconsin-Madison graduate, pointed us to thestate expenditure study done in 2013 by the National Association of State Budget Officers.The study comes from a respected trade group andother organizationsrefer to its findings.

FMD_train_678

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

11/12/2015

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

True

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

FMD_train_984

George Carlin 'Bad American'

06/10/2001

Just about any unsourced list of witty observations about our politics and social mores gets credited to humorist George Carlin these days, even when it doesn't really sound like anything he would write. George Carlin I'm Your Worst Nightmare. I am a BAD Republican. I like big cars, big cigars and naturally big racks. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid-level governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts squirting out babies. I don't care about appearing compassionate. I think playing with guns doesn't make you a killer. I believe its called the Boy Scouts for a reason. I think I'm better than the homeless. I am not the real Slim Shady, so I think that Im gonna stay seated right here in this damn comfy chair. I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized. I don't care if you call me a racist, a homophobe or a misogynist. I am not tolerant of others because they are different. I know that no matter how big Jennifer Lopezs toilet gets, Ill still want to see it. I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. I believe that if you are selling me a Big Mac, you do it in English. I like my porn without silicon. I don't use the excuse "it's for the children" as a shield for unpopular opinions or actions. I want to know when MTV became such crap. I think getting a hummer is sex, and every man is entitled to at least one extremely sloppy one per month. I know what the definition of is is. I think Oprah's eyes are way too far apart. I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet. I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny. I want them to bring back safe and sane fireworks. I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or Marilyn Manson sang. I think that being a student doesnt give you any more enlightenment than working at Blockbuster. Ive never mourned a dead goldfish. I dont want to eat or drink anything with the words light, lite or fat-free on the package. I believe everyone has a right to pray to their God or gods, while I pray that the test results come back negative. I think the Clippers should play in the WNBA. My heroes are Abraham Lincoln, Orson Wells, Ronald Reagan and whoever canceled Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman. I think creative violence makes movies more interesting and Iraqis more dead. I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake, but I still think The Rock could kick my butt. I think global warming is junk science. Ive never owned or was a slave, I didn't wander forty years in the desert after getting chased out of Egypt, I havent burned any witches or been persecuted by the Turks and neither have you, so shut-the-f-up already. South Park still makes me laugh. I think you can respect and admire women while mentally undressing them. I believe a self-righteous liberal with a cause is more dangerous than a PlayStation. I want to know which church is it exactly where the Rev. Jessie Jackson preaches. I think explosions are cool. I don't care where Ellen puts her tongue. I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry ass if youre running from them. I thought Spinal Tap was great, but Rob Reiner can still kiss my backside. I worry about dying before I get even. Ive discovered that DVD is better than Laserdisc. I like the convenience of buying oranges while I'm waiting at a stop-light, and I'm pretty sure the Latina midget selling them to me is glad she no longer lives in a refrigerator packing carton outside Ensenada. I figured out Bruce Willis was dead midway through The Sixth Sense but enjoyed it anyway. I think turkey bacon sucks. I want somebody to explain to me exactly why it's wrong to point out that when I watch a freeway chase, I know the losers the police eventually pull out of the car are gonna be a gang-banging hommies or vatos. I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a parent. I think tattoos and piercings are fine if you want them, but please dont pretend they are a political statement. I want to know what the hell is going on when Geena Davis has a sitcom. I like hard women, hard liquor and a hard bowel movement first thing in the morning. I believe you dont have to speak with a lisp to pick out a couch for your living room. I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Field of Dreams. I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid. I will not conform or compromise just to keep from hurting somebody's feelings. Sometimes I throw my soft drink can in the trash, even when the recycle bin is just a few more steps. Making love is fine, but sometimes I wanna get laid. I'm neither angry nor disenfranchised, no matter how desperately the mainstream media would like the world to believe otherwise. Yes, I'm a bad Republican. And I vote... even if it rains. Yes, I Guess I am A BAD American. I like big cars, big boats, big houses, and naturally big tits. I believe the money I make belongs to me and my family, not some mid-level governmental functionary with a bad comb-over who wants to give it away to crack addicts squirting out babies. I don't care about appearing compassionate. I think playing with toy guns doesn't make you a killer. I believe it's called the Boy Scouts for a reason. I think I'm doing better than the homeless. I don't think being a minority makes you noble or victimized. I have the right not to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird or piss me off. I know what SEX is and there are not varying degrees of it. Hell, just ask my wife. I don't celebrate Kwanzaa. But if you want to that's fine; just don't feel like everyone else should have to. I believe that if you are selling me a Dairy queen shake, pack of cigarettes, or hotel room you do it in English. As of matter of fact, if you are an American citizen you should speak English. My father and grandfather shouldn't have to die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come disrespect ours. I think the cops have every right to shoot your sorry ass if you're running from them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the word freeze or stop in English, See the previous line. If I received a blow job from one of my subordinate employees in my office, it wouldn't be a private matter or my personal business. I would have been FIRED immediately. I know how to count votes and I feel much safer letting a machine with no political affiliation recount when needed. I know what the definition of lying is. I don't think just because you were not born in this country, you qualify for any special loan programs, gov't sponsored bank loans, etc., so you can you can open a hotel, c-store, trinket shop, or any damn thing else. I thought the Taco Bell dog was funny. I want them to bring back safe and sane fireworks. I believe no one ever died because of something Ozzy Osbourne, Ice-T or Marilyn Manson sang, but that doesn't mean I want to listen to that crap from someone else's car when I'm stopped at a red light.But I respect your right to. I think that being a student doesn't give you any more enlightenment than working at Blockbuster or Jack In The Box. I don't want to eat or drink anything with the words light, Lite, or fat-free on the package. I did not go to some foreign country and risk my life in vain and defend our constitution so that decades later you can tell me it's a living document ever changing and is open to interpretation. I don't hate the rich. I don't pity the poor. I know wrestling is fake. I've never owned or was a slave, and a large percentage or our forefathers weren't wealthy enough to own one either. I think you can respect and admire women while mentally undressing them. I believe a self-righteous liberal with a cause is more dangerous than a Hell's Angel with an attitude. I want to know which church is it exactly where the "Rev." Jesse Jackson preaches; and besides what exactly is his job function. I don't care where Ellen puts her tongue. I own a gun, you can own a gun, and any red blooded American should be allowed to own a gun, but if you use it in a crime then you will serve the time. A rubber band and a paper clip is a dangerous weapon in the hands of someone with malicious intent. I worry about dying before I get even. I didn't take the initiative in inventing the Internet. I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it pisses you off, invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building. Ask your buddy that invented the Internet to help you. I don't believe in hate crime legislation. Even suggesting it pisses me off. You're telling me that someone who is a minority, gay, disabled, another nationality, or otherwise different from the mainstream of this country has more value as a human being that I do as a white male. Hell, if someone kills anyone, I'd say that it's a hate crime. I like the convenience of buying oranges from a sidewalk vendor or while I'm waiting at a stop-light, and I'm pretty sure the Latin midget selling them to me is glad she no longer lives in a refrigerator box in East LA or is sleeping in the streets of her home country. We don't need more laws! Let's enforce the ones we already have. I think turkey bacon, turkey beef, turkey fake anything sucks. I believe that it doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a parent with the balls to stand up to the kid and spank his butt and say "NO". I think tattoos and piercing are fine if you want them, but please don't pretend they are a political statement. I'll admit that the only movie that ever made me cry was Ole Yeller. I didn't realize Dr. Seuss was a genius until I had a kid. I will not be frowned upon or be looked down upon or be made to keep silent because I have these beliefs and opinions. I thought this country allowed me that right I will not conform or compromise just to keep from hurting somebody's feelings. I'm neither angry nor disenfranchised, no matter how desperately the mainstream media would like the world to believe otherwise. Yes, I guess by their definition, I'm a bad American. Carlin may sometimes use the format of stringing together a few dozen pithy comments about a wide variety of topical subjects, but the tone of his humor is nothing like this reactionary piece. If any doubt remained, Carlin himself swept it away by announcing on his web site that he is not the author of the article. web site If not Carlin, then who did write it? This piece has also been credited to a number of decidedly conservative, outspoken media figures, such as rock star Ted Nugent, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, and other comedians, such as Denis Leary, but the even if the article might seem to echo the political opinions of these men, it doesn't quite match any of them, nor does the language used sound quite right for any of these figures. (Leary, like Carlin, has been credited with creating some other Internet favorites, such as a vituperative discourse on e-mail chain letters and the "Are You Man Enough?" essay.) Ted Nugent Rush Limbaugh Denis Leary chain letters Are You Man Enough? The essay quoted at the head of this page appeared in the FreeRepublic.com on-line forum back in September 2000 under the title "I Am a Bad Republican" (picking up title changes and additions since then as it was forwarded around the Internet), and the person who posted it there has taken credit for it in a another message in that same forum, stating that he wrote it in response to list sent to him by a Democrat friend about how to be a "good Republican." FreeRepublic.com message Last updated: 2 October 2005 <!-- Sources: Rooney, Andy. "My Name's Been Stolen." Sacramento Bee. 24 July 2003.-->

False

Just about any unsourced list of witty observations about our politics and social mores gets credited to humorist George Carlin these days, even when it doesn't really sound like anything he would write.Carlin may sometimes use the format of stringing together a few dozen pithy comments about a wide variety of topical subjects, but the tone of his humor is nothing like this reactionary piece. If any doubt remained, Carlin himself swept it away by announcing on his web site that he is not the author of the article.If not Carlin, then who did write it? This piece has also been credited to a number of decidedly conservative, outspoken media figures, such as rock star Ted Nugent, talk radio host Rush Limbaugh, and other comedians, such as Denis Leary, but the even if the article might seem to echo the political opinions of these men, it doesn't quite match any of them, nor does the language used sound quite right for any of these figures. (Leary, like Carlin, has been credited with creating some other Internet favorites, such as a vituperative discourse on e-mail chain letters and the "Are You Man Enough?" essay.)The essay quoted at the head of this page appeared in the FreeRepublic.com on-line forum back in September 2000 under the title "I Am a Bad Republican" (picking up title changes and additions since then as it was forwarded around the Internet), and the person who posted it there has taken credit for it in a another message in that same forum, stating that he wrote it in response to list sent to him by a Democrat friend about how to be a "good Republican."