Datasets:

kkawamu1

/

fmd_train_val

like 0

FMD_train_1062

Did the national debt decrease by $102 billion following Donald Trump's inauguration?

08/14/2017

On 30 July 2017, the conservative Truth Division web site reported that the United States' national debt had fallen to a "surprising" extent in the seven months since the inauguration of President Donald Trump: Truth Division President Donald Trump and his administration are undoing the governments rampant spending that occurred under former President Obamas watch. According the U.S. Treasurys direct record, a surprising amount of money has been saved over the course of seven months. On January 20th, the day Trump was inaugurated, the total debt was $19,947,304,555,212.49. On July 30th, seven short months later, its at $19,844,938,940,351.37. Overall the debt has decreased by $102,365,614,861.12. We have checked these numbers and set them in context, and found that the national debt did indeed fall by $102 billion between 20 January and the end of July 2017. This decline is also historically remarkable, in both absolute and percentage terms. This six-month fall in the national debt is also significant when measured against the size of the overall economy. National debt the basics The national debt is, in brief, the total value of what the federal government owes, and is made up of accumulated annual deficits (when the government spends more than it receives in taxes and other income). It is made up of "public debt" and "intragovernmental holdings." Public debt is, essentially, debt held by sources outside the central government. Intragovernmental holdings are debts between agencies within the federal government, in the form of government trust funds, such as Social Security trust funds. National debt the numbers According to figures published by the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Services on the TreasuryDirect web site, the national debt was $19.84 trillion on 27 July 2017 (not 30 July, as stated by Truth Division. On 20 January, it was $19.95 trillion. TreasuryDirect That shows a fall of $102.37 billion, or 0.51 percent, over a period of 131 business days. To set that in context, we analyzed national debt data stretching back to 12 July 1993, and examined every 131-day period in the last 24 years. You can download a spreadsheet containing all the relevant data here. here Debt-to-GDP ratio The national debt, however, is best viewed with reference to the overall economy. If two countries have about the same national debt, the one with the smaller economy will likely be more constrained in its spending, whereas the larger economy despite having the same level of debt will be less affected in terms of economic and fiscal policy. A good way of checking this is to compare the size of the debt to the size of the economy, measured as GDP (gross domestic product). GDP is the combined market value of all goods and services produced in a given jurisdiction (in this case, the United States). This comparison between the size of the national debt and the size of the economy is known as the debt-to-GDP ratio. While the Treasury Department publishes the national debt for every business day, GDP is only published on a quarterly basis (once every three months). In order to compare the debt-to-GDP ratio on 27 July with the same figure on Inauguration Day, we have to get a little bit creative. For example, we know that the United States GDP was $18.9 trillion at the end of December 2016 (the end of the fourth quarter), according to figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Bureau of Economic Analysis We also know that the national debt on 30 December 2016 was $19.98 trillion, so the estimated debt-to-GDP ratio on that date was 105.67 percent. In other words, the debts of the United States federal government were 5.67 percent bigger than the size of the Unites States economy (when measured by GDP). At the end of the first quarter of 2017 (the end of March), GDP was $19.06 trillion. And we know that on 31 March, the national debt was $19.85 trillion, meaning the debt-to-GDP ratio was 104.14 percent a healthier number than at the end of December. But to estimate GDP for all the days in between 30 December and 31 March (including 20 January, Inauguration Day) we have to cheat a little bit. You can read more about our methodology by downloading this spreadsheet, but here's what our estimates revealed: Causes The Truth Division, a conservative, openly pro-Trump web site, clearly attributes this decline in the national debt to the president, claiming he and his administration are "undoing the government's rampant spending" and "keeping his promises regarding fiscal responsibility". However, the article does not cite any examples of actions taken by Donald Trump which would support this conclusion. Jared Bernstein, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and former economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, dismissed any claims that President Trump is responsible: Trump hasn't legislated anything that would have any impact on the fiscal accounts, so it simply doesn't make sense on the face it. Instead, Bernstein told us, the cause of the drop in the debt is simple the federal debt ceiling that has been in place since March 2017. If you look at a plot of the total debt right now, it's holding steady at the limit, because to go over the limit is unconstitutional. So you either have to engage in extraordinary measures or eventually default, and the latter is unimaginable so right now Treasury is engaged in the former. That is, they are delaying or suspending various payments that need to be made, particularly within some of their intra-governmental accounts... By those measures, they can hold the national debt where it is for a certain amount of time. Eventually, Bernstein says, the debt ceiling will have to be lifted, and the payments that had been delayed will cause the national debt to increase once again. That pattern can be seen in this chart, which shows the national debt from January 2011 up to the end of July 2017. There are four flat lines showing four periods during which the debt ceiling was frozen: from May to August 2011; May to October 2013; March to October 2015; and the ongoing period since March 2017. 2011 2013 2015 Conclusion The Truth Division article accurately describes the extent to which the national debt fell between the inauguration of Donald Trump in January 2017 and the end of July of the same year. And it rightly describes this fall as "surprising", since it ranks among the very largest 131-day declines in the national debt since July 1993, both in absolute and percentage terms. Similarly, the decline in both components of the national debt public debt and intragovernmental holdings was highly significant between 20 January and 27 July 2017, both in absolute and percentage terms, and as we have shown, the national debt has fallen by an estimated 2.25 percent since Inauguration Day even when measured against the size of the overall Unites States economy. Whether or not any actions or decisions made by Donald Trump have caused or contributed to these historically remarkable declines in the debt is a question that goes beyond the scope of this particular fact check. Unfortunately, the national debt resumed its upward march in August 2017 and by mid-August 2018 stood at about $21.3 trillion (up $1.4 trillion since Inauguration Day), so the early 2017 drop has not proved to be a long-term trend. national debt A spreadsheet containing all the data relevant to this article can be downloaded here. here Bureau of Fiscal Services. "Frequently Asked Questions About the Public Debt". TreasuryDirect.gov. 1 April 2016.

True

On 30 July 2017, the conservative Truth Division web site reported that the United States' national debt had fallen to a "surprising" extent in the seven months since the inauguration of President Donald Trump:According to figures published by the Treasury Department's Bureau of Fiscal Services on the TreasuryDirect web site, the national debt was $19.84 trillion on 27 July 2017 (not 30 July, as stated by Truth Division. On 20 January, it was $19.95 trillion.That shows a fall of $102.37 billion, or 0.51 percent, over a period of 131 business days. To set that in context, we analyzed national debt data stretching back to 12 July 1993, and examined every 131-day period in the last 24 years. You can download a spreadsheet containing all the relevant data here.For example, we know that the United States GDP was $18.9 trillion at the end of December 2016 (the end of the fourth quarter), according to figures published by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. That pattern can be seen in this chart, which shows the national debt from January 2011 up to the end of July 2017. There are four flat lines showing four periods during which the debt ceiling was frozen: from May to August 2011; May to October 2013; March to October 2015; and the ongoing period since March 2017. Unfortunately, the national debt resumed its upward march in August 2017 and by mid-August 2018 stood at about $21.3 trillion (up $1.4 trillion since Inauguration Day), so the early 2017 drop has not proved to be a long-term trend.A spreadsheet containing all the data relevant to this article can be downloaded here.

FMD_train_546

Polo Blow

01/23/2005

Commercial: Viral ad featuring the Volkswagen Polo employs suicide bomber imagery. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2005] [Note: This video clip is a 2.6 MB file please be patient while it downloads.] Origins: The availability of the Internet as a tool to spread information quickly, cheaply, and (mostly) anonymously has enabled the advent of "viral marketing": buzz-generating advertisements whose content is unsuitable for traditional media (such as television), distributed through "unofficial" channels such as web sites and e-mail forwards. Viral ads may not be obvious about what product they're promoting, or even obvious as advertisements at all. (BurgerKing's "subservient chicken" promotion is a good example of the latter category.) subservient chicken Companies often try to obscure the connections between themselves and their viral ads, sometimes claiming that promotions were "unauthorized" or "accidentally released." Though this technique may be effective in generating publicity, it can also backfire: If someone does indeed produce an unauthorized viral ad that creates negative publicity for the business it supposedly promotes, how can a company prove they weren't behind it? This is the dilemma currently faced by Volkswagen regarding a viral ad seemingly calculated to offend as many human beings as possible. The spot begins with a motorist leaving his house and hopping into his Volkswagen Polo a motorist with a distinctly Middle Eastern appearance who sports a black-and-white checkered kaffiyeh like the one commonly associated in the public mind with the late Palestinian chairman Yasser Arafat (and thus, by extension, with terrorists and suicide bombers). After a short jaunt, the driver pulls up in front of a busy restaurant with curbside seating (as women holding babies, talking on cellphones, and just strolling down the street flash by in the background), pulls out a detonator, and depresses the button. Rather than causing widespread death and destruction, however, the muffled blast is completely contained by the car, leading to the end slogan: 'Polo. Small but tough.' So just who produced this offensive spot? The ad doesn't appear to be a spoof put together by some rogue amateur filmmakers, as its production values (e.g., shot on 35mm film, probably at a cost in the tens of thousands of dollars) would indicate. Paul Buckett, a Volkswagen spokesman, has denied that the automobile manufacturer had anything to do with it: Two creatives known to our advertising agency, DDB (Doyle Dane Bernbach) London, sent in this work on spec. The agency wouldn't have anything to do it. I can only assume the people who made it put it on the web. We were horrified. This is not something we would consider using: it is in incredibly bad taste to depict suicide bombers. It gives the impression we've condoned or supported it, and is potentially very damaging to Volkswagen. Our legal department is planning an action .' According to the UK newspaper The Guardian, the "suicide bomber" spot was created by the Lee and Dan team, a British pair who have produced a number of other advertisements (including virals) known for their quirkiness. The duo maintained that the clip was a self-promotional work not intended for public viewing: Lee and Dan We made the advert for Volkswagen. We never really intended it for public consumption. It was principally something we made to show people in the industry but it got out somehow. About half the work we do is for our own purpose, it is self-promotional. The ad's a comment on what's happening at the moment. People see this on the news every day. The car is the hero that protects innocent people from someone with very bad intentions. The ad got out accidentally and spread like wildfire. We're sorry if it has caused any offence. Others quoted by the Guardian concurred with the self-promotional nature of the spot, if not necessarily about its release being an "accident": Matt Smith, of the ad agency Viral Factory, said he thought the advert had been made as a "test" in order to get work. "My suspicion is that it was made for a very small audience in order to get work. It's such a risky piece it wasn't meant to be seen by a mass audience." A spokesman for Volkswagen said the company was considering legal action and blamed the advert on "two young creatives who are trying to make a name for themselves". "We don't take these sorts of risks with our advertisements. We regard ourselves as honest and respectable." On 26 January 2004, the Guardian reported they had located the director of the clip, Stuart Fryer, who disputed Lee and Dan's claim its production had cost 40,000 and affirmed that the spot was not meant for public viewing: Both Lee and Dan have apologised for the film, which they said had a 40,000 budget, but have refused to identify themselves or explain how it was funded. But in a new development, MediaGuardian.co.uk has tracked down the director of the spoof advert, Stuart Fryer, 35. Breaking his silence for the first time, he said he was horrified by the reaction to the ad and had only ever meant it to be used on a showreel and never seen by the public. He disputed Lee and Dan's estimate of its 40,000 cost, saying the cost had been "more like 400". "If it cost that much I would like to know where the money went," Mr Fryer said. "It was made in my spare time. It's remarkable what you can do for such a low budget. "I just wanted it for show reel purposes, not seen by millions of people around the world. "I don't want to offend people, I just want to make advertisements.I wanted to show it to the Saatchis and BBHs of this world. "Little did I know that the advert that I made would be sent out on the internet and create such a fuss - it's shocked me." Volkswagen also announced that they would be going ahead and pursuing legal action against the video's creators: After a week of prevarication, the car giant has decided to go ahead and sue the people behind the advert on the grounds that it was damaging its reputation around the world and falsely linked the VW with terrorism. "We are taking legal action but because it's early stages we cannot comment further," a Volkswagen spokesman said. But the company privately admitted that it cannot locate Lee and Dan, the London based advertising creative partnership who dreamed up the film, which has been seen around the world via the internet. "We are prepared to pursue the two individuals but need to locate them to ensure the success of our legal claim," the company said in a private memo, details of which have been obtained by MediaGuardian.co.uk. Last updated: 26 January 2005 Sources: Brook, Stephen. "Spoof Suicide Bomber Ad Sparks Global Row." The Guardian. 20 January 2005. Brook, Stephen. "VW to Sue Polo Bomb Ad Duo." The Guardian. 26 January 2005. Sanders, Holly M. "VW's Ad Is Spoof on Terror." New York Post. 19 January 2005. Sanders, Holly M. "Riding the Auto-Bomb." New York Post. 20 January 2005. Smith, David. "Suicide Bomber Sells VW Polo." The Guardian. 23 January 2005.

True

and e-mail forwards. Viral ads may not be obvious about what product they're promoting, or even obvious as advertisements at all. (BurgerKing's "subservient chicken" promotion is a good example of the latter category.) According to the UK newspaper The Guardian, the "suicide bomber" spot was created by the Lee and Dan team, a British pair who have produced a number of other advertisements (including virals) known for their quirkiness. The duo maintained that the clip was a self-promotional work not intended for public viewing:

FMD_train_1226

Sharpie Anniversary Giveaway Scam

02/20/2016

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

False

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

FMD_train_1116

WikiLeaks Exposes Clinton Assassination of Antonin Scalia?

10/14/2016

On 13 October 2016, the website RedStateWatcher reported that an email published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives. The report stated, "For Trump's sake, please share this to get the word out. The corruption is immense! We need Trump elected to save our country!" According to new WikiLeaks emails, three days before Justice Scalia died, this email was sent, using the term "wetworks," which is exclusively used in a military context to mean "assassination." The item referenced a leaked email sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. The emails in that chain were presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first). The sender, John Podesta, initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM. The email from Steve Elmendorf read: From: John Podesta [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Tuesday, February 09, 2016 4:36 PM To: Steve Elmendorf <[email protected]> Subject: Thanks "Didn't think wet works meant pool parties at the Vineyard." From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2016-02-09 20:56 Subject: RE: Thanks "I am all in. Sounds like it will be a bad night; we all need to buckle up and double down." Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague email was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination. Claims that Scalia was assassinated were not novel, as conspiracy theories about the manner of his death swept social media within a day of his passing. The newly leaked document was contemporaneous with Scalia's sudden death, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork"). However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applications. In fact, the term had recently been used euphemistically to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders. Conservative websites gleefully denounced Chelsea as the attack dog. Democrats, meanwhile, wrung their hands over why she, of all people, would be dispatched to do this kind of wet work. As strategist Brad Bannon told The Hill, "This makes Chelsea just another political player in the arena, and if I were Chelsea, that's not where I'd want to be." A media bored to tears with the Democratic primary leapt on the episode like ducks on a June bug. Commentators mused endlessly about why the Clinton camp had taken this route and what it meant. The consensus was that it meant nothing good. Bernie Sanders was repeatedly invited to respond. Bloomberg's Mark Halperin might have sounded a smidge melodramatic when he asserted, "I have covered the Clintons since 1991. It takes a lot to surprise me, and I am stunned watching Chelsea Clinton go on the attack. Stunned. Never seen anything like it." In media coverage, "wet work" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. On the same day that the emails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton. The Sanders campaign is all about smashing the alleged stranglehold corporate power has on politics, and the candidate himself frequently touts that his insurgent run is funded by small donations, not wealthy people or outside groups. It's been an effective message, one pro-Clinton forces have tried to muddy by calling attention to Sanders' ties to the DSCC (Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee), which is financed in large part by industry PACs. The DSCC used its financial and political power to bolster Sanders and urged Democrats not to challenge him in his 2006 Senate bid, spending close to $200,000 through various means to aid his election. Bill Clinton said this week that he "practically fell out of my chair" when he read reports that Sanders had attended the DSCC's summer donor retreats on Martha's Vineyard, and Hillary Clinton said Sanders took Wall Street cash not directly, but through the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. The Sanders campaign fired back by calling the charge disturbing, dishonest, and beyond preposterous, noting that the DSCC also receives small donations and is hardly exclusively funded by Wall Street. Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the subject of emails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates appeared to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the email appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG). Rearranged in chronological order, the chain demonstrated Hillary Clinton's staffers planning how best to attack her opponent with retreat images and information about the lavish fundraisers: On Feb 6, 2016, 9:47 PM, "Tina Flournoy" <[email protected]> wrote: "Bernie at the DSCC retreat." On Saturday, February 6, 2016, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote: "Omg." On Feb 6, 2016, 9:58 PM, "John Podesta" <[email protected]> wrote: "Can we tweet?" On Feb 6, 2016, at 7:02 PM, Brian Fallon <[email protected]> wrote: "I think we should give to NY Post." From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2016-02-07 01:09 Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPG "DSCC event in Edgartown last July. Getting exact date." On Sat, Feb 6, 2016, at 10:18 PM, Tina Flournoy <[email protected]> wrote: "Will send briefing for the event with attendees." From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Date: 2016-02-07 16:18 Subject: Re: IMG_0692.JPG "Thank you. We are on this." Tina Flournoy stated Sanders attended a DSCC event in July 2015, and on the date of the "wet work" email (to which Podesta was also a party), Seitz-Wald wrote: "During his 10 years in the Senate, Bernie Sanders has been a regular presence at luxurious Democratic fundraising retreats, according to more than a half-dozen lobbyists, donors, and former Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee staff members with whom he attended the events. Sanders most recently appeared at one last July, shortly after he announced his presidential run." Sanders' connection to the DSCC has become an issue in his heated primary contest with front-runner Hillary Clinton, who has struggled to explain her close ties to Wall Street and the large speaking fees she's been paid by Goldman Sachs and other banks. Sanders has made Clinton's relationships with the financial industry a key point of contrast on the campaign trail. On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives emailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear: "We have gamed out this hit and don't think it works on the debate stage (see Milwaukee debate as an example). But hit him all the time on being at DSCC retreats on Martha's Vineyard with lobbyists every year. Finding that it harder for him." Rearranged into the context of Antonin Scalia's death, the use of the term "wet work" was presumed by many to mean literal assassination. But emails between staffers just prior to the 9 February 2016 document revealed planning for a coordinated effort to plant a negative story about Sanders in the press in the days leading up to the 9 February 2016 email and article. On the date Podesta discussed "wet work" with Elmendorf, MSNBC published the coverage sought by Clinton's staffers on 6 and 7 February 2016. As such, the most likely victim of the "wet work" was not Scalia, but Sanders.

False

On 13 October 2016, the web site RedStateWatcher reported that e-mail published by WikiLeaks revealed U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had been assassinated by Hillary Clinton operatives:The item referenced a leaked e-mail sent on 9 February 2016, four days before Justice Scalia was found dead in his room at a Texas ranch. E-mail in that chain was presented in reverse chronological order (with the most recent reply first) sender John Podesta initiated the chain at 4:36 PM, and recipient Steve Elmendorf responded at 8:56 PM:Based on Wikipedia's definition of the term, RedStateWatcher claimed that the "wet works" phrase used in the otherwise vague e-mail was incontrovertible proof it referenced a literal assassination:Claims that Scalia was assassinated were not novel, as within a day of his death conspiracy theories about the manner in which he died swept social media. And the newly-leaked document was contemporaneous to Scalia's sudden passing, heightening concern about the use of the term "wet work" (or "wetwork").However, dictionaries present a broader picture of the term and its applied uses:In fact, the term had then-recently been used euphemistically, to describe Chelsea Clinton's campaign trail attacks on her mother's Democratic primary opponent, Bernie Sanders:In media coverage, "wet work[s]" was being used to describe deliberately obtained unflattering coverage of an opponent. And on the same day that the e-mails supposedly describing an assassination plot were sent, Alex Seitz-Wald penned an article for MSNBC that described Bernie Sanders as a regular attendee of luxurious fundraisers, particularly in Martha's Vineyard. The piece also reported both Bill and Hillary Clinton as performing the same sort of "wet work" as Chelsea Clinton:Although MSNBC published the piece on 9 February 2016, the topic of Sanders' DSCC retreats was the subject of e-mails dated 6 and 7 February 2016. In that chain, campaign associates looked to have discovered a photograph of Sanders at such a retreat and brainstormed ways in which to get a member of the press to cover his attendance at a February 2016 DSCC fundraiser (the e-mail appeared to have an appended image of Sanders titled IMG_0692.JPG).On 13 February 2016, Clinton campaign operatives e-mailed about continuing to use the fundraisers as a smear:

FMD_train_57

412-Pound Deer

11/10/2006

Photographs show a 412-lb. deer killed in Nebraska. Partly true. Example: [Collected via e-mail, 2006] For all you deer hunters: How about this deer? Could you imagine! A 412-pound deer killed along the Clarion River in Northwest Pennsylvania. Good GOD! This is one big deer! The deer was killed in Clarion County, Pa., and weighed 412 lbs. It could supposedly be the heaviest whitetail ever taken. Cabela's, HERE WE COME! Origins: Three common characteristics of nearly every set of Internet-circulated photos purporting to document someone's having killed a very large (if not the largest) example of a particular species are: The photographs will circulate in multiple versions, each stating a different locale where the killing supposedly took place. Viewers will debate the authenticity of the photographs, focusing on small details such as shadowing, coloring, and proportion as evidence that the images have been digitally manipulated. Hunters, wildlife experts, and others will maintain that the animal pictured is significantly smaller and/or lighter than claimed in the accompanying text. All of these characteristics apply to the above-displayed photographs of a claimed 412-lb. white-tailed buck deer killed by a hunter. The earliest versions of these e-mailed pictures said the deer was taken in Nebraska, but later versions changed the site of the kill to "along the Clarion River in Northwest Pennsylvania." Internet pundits maintained that the images were faked because the deer's coloration appeared inconsistent and/or its antlers looked too small. Media skeptics asserted that the deer was far smaller than claimed, as exemplified by this excerpt from a Utica Observer-Dispatch article: Some readers have been kind enough to send me photos of the 412-pound buck from Nebraska that is making the rounds on the internet. It's a big deer, to be sure, but it is not 412 pounds or anywhere close. Camera angles and advantageous poses make the buck appear to be much larger than it is. I contacted Kit Hams at the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, and he said their staff has seen this photo many times. Hams doubts its authenticity for the same reasons I do. He said he was told the hunter was from Truman, Arkansas. The commission came up with a name but was unable to identify that person as a permit holder in Nebraska. A guy kills the biggest, fattest whitetail almost anyone has ever heard of, and his name isn't plastered all over the country? Not very likely. Hams said he believes the biggest deer he's ever checked in his state weighed in at about 250 pounds field-dressed. That would be a shade over 300 on the hoof, and that is a very, very big deer. A Toledo Blade columnist suggested the photographs were outright fakes: Call it a cabin-fever buck—the photographs of a supposed 412-pound white-tailed buck deer circulating among e-mails of late, that is. The thing, in a classic bowhunting "success" pose with the hunter and buddies, is so big that it pushes the envelope of credibility to the breaking point. It could simply be a dead-of-winter-and-there-ain't-no-ice-fishin' prank. It could be the clever work of photo-doctoring, which is so easy to do these days, even on a PC at home. A copy will not be printed with this column simply because it could encourage too many viewers of the photo to jump to conclusions. In January 2006, Dennis Anderson of the Minneapolis Star Tribune wrote a column expressing skepticism about these photos similar to that contained in the newspaper articles excerpted above. A few weeks later, Anderson reported that he had been contacted by an Arkansas resident named Stan Whitt, who said that he had killed the deer while bow hunting on a Nebraska Indian reservation in November 2005 (and that the deer was taken on an Indian reservation explained why Nebraska state wildlife officials were unaware of it). Whitt provided Anderson with all sorts of details about where and how he had killed the animal: Whitt says he was hunting on the reservation last November with three friends from Arkansas. He says he and his friends hunt with bows only and that he has hunted deer and other big game in about 20 states. He shot the deer on a Saturday morning as it moved from water to a bedding area, Whitt said. "I killed him at five paces," he said, from a portable stand about 25 feet high in a tree. Whitt said he had to hold his bowstring (he shoots a Mathews bow) back for 10 minutes while the deer approached. He said he shot the deer virtually straight down, the shot striking behind the left shoulder and 3 inches from the spine. His arrow carried a 100-grain Simmons broadhead. The animal disappeared in the far distance, Whitt said, losing the arrow as he ran. Four hours later, Whitt began his search for the deer. He said he looked alone until dark without finding the animal. The next morning, one of his friends joined the search, as well as a reservation game warden and another man. Whitt said his friend found the deer in a draw or ravine about noon that day, a Sunday. However, the true size of the deer is questionable and unconfirmable. Whitt admitted that the animal was "somewhat bloated" by the time they found it the following day and that he did not actually have it weighed. Instead, he took the deer to the reservation wildlife office, where its live weight was estimated at 412 lbs. from a procedure that involved measuring its girth behind its front legs. Although the procedure used supposedly has only a 6% margin of error, the 412-lb. estimate is nonetheless only an estimate, and one possibly subject to inflation due to the "somewhat bloated" condition of the deer. Last updated: 10 November 2006. Sources: Anderson, Dennis. "Bigger or Byte-Sized?" [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 22 January 2006 (p. C18). Anderson, Dennis. "Claim Staked on Huge Deer That Caused Internet Stir." [Minneapolis] Star Tribune. 11 February 2006 (p. C18). Pitarresi, John. "Buck Unlikely to Be 412 Pounds." [Utica] Observer-Dispatch. 29 January 2006. Pollick, Steve. "Authorities Don't Buy Photos of 400-Pound Deer." The [Toledo] Blade. 31 January 2006.

True

For all you deer hunters; How about this deer?

FMD_train_1556

500 percent more traffic here?

06/09/2015

A portion of residential Northwest Austin has bristled at the prospect of a low-rise office park transforming into something much larger. Our attention was drawn to yard signs suggesting that the towering redevelopment at the southwest corner of Spicewood Springs Road and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) would quintuple area traffic. Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LP seeks a zoning change to build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire stated that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been scaled back to approximately 10-story buildings, according to Steve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case. Initial plans, also modified per Drenner, called for up to 610 apartments and townhomes in three- to five-story buildings, plus retail and restaurant space. The earliest construction was planned to start around 2020, after existing office leases expire. The 500% signs do not reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer with a coalition opposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them. City 'unable to verify' traffic impact We reached out to city officials initially, wondering what data were available. By email, spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola informed us: The project and the traffic impact analysis are currently under review. At this time, we are unable to verify the traffic impact until a full evaluation of the project and accompanying mitigation is provided by the developer. Meanwhile, we found something close to the 500 percent claim in a September 2014 presentation by Jim Duncan of Austin, a city planner by profession. Duncan said he developed the presentation at the urging of a neighborhood friend and based his traffic projection on an engineering report written by another firm at the developer's request. That report, Duncan said, indicated daily car trips near the proposed Austin Oaks Planned Use Development would increase from 4,118 to 23,804 once the expansion was completed—a 478 percent increase. We turned back to Arzola, who agreed by email that it appears the traffic figures indeed came from the developer's consultant's study. However, she noted that a fresh traffic analysis was released in May 2015 based on the developer changing what it seeks to build. Duncan said he had heard about the revision discussions and, for that reason, he believed his calculation of the potential 478 percent increase in daily car trips near the project would likely be outdated. I'm sure the number is lower now, Duncan said. Traffic impact studies Arzola emailed us two traffic studies for the project, dated a year apart, and another city official, Bryan Golden, emailed us excerpts from a study completed in August 2014 (which appeared to be the one Duncan relied on). Each study presents predicted unadjusted daily trips in the area should the project be built out, with predicted increases ranging from more than 300 percent to more than 480 percent. Generally, unadjusted daily trips refer to daily car trips in an area, a city official told us, without reductions accounting for trips internal to a development or trips made on city buses. An unadjusted count includes trips expected due to existing developments plus the additional trips anticipated once the project is completed, Bryan Golden explained via email. The projections are generated by an engineering industry calculator, Golden said. The initial June 26, 2014, traffic impact analysis was completed by professional engineer Bobak J. Tehrany for Bury-AUS, Inc. That analysis, of 14 nearby intersections and 11 proposed driveways, stated that the redevelopment, upon completion in 2031, would generate an additional 20,736 unadjusted daily trips by car compared to approximately 4,248 daily trips attributed to the existing office complex, which breaks down to an eventual 488 percent increase. With the redevelopment, Tehrany wrote, all but two of the nearby intersections would need improvements. He noted that the maximum desirable volumes are currently being exceeded along the evaluated roadway segments, though he also stated that this does not mean the roadways have exceeded their respective capacities. The Aug. 19, 2014, traffic impact analysis—taking into account a nearby intersection the city wanted to add to the analysis, Amanda Swor of Drenner's firm told us by email—suggested the project would result in nearly 19,700 additional unadjusted daily car trips, up 478 percent from 4,118 previously recorded. We did not ascertain why the count of current-day traffic decreased. Most recently, the May 22, 2015, traffic impact analysis filed on behalf of the developers states: Based on the proposed land use intensities, it is anticipated that the development will generate a total of 19,819 unadjusted daily trips; however, due to the existing office land uses, the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to generate a net increase of 15,701 unadjusted daily trips. This takes into consideration the trips that already exist on the roadway network due to the existing development. That is, once the development is completed, nearby traffic would increase by 381 percent from the 4,118 daily car trips recorded previously. Developer's advocate says traffic likely to increase less By phone, Drenner pointed out that the May 2015 analysis includes a chart suggesting that once adjustments are made to account for car trips internal to the development, there would actually be a 332 percent increase in traffic. He noted that this latest analysis was based on Spire's modified development plan, which halved the number of residential units and reduced retail uses, filed with the city on April 30, 2015. Drenner also mentioned that the developers are proposing $1.5 million in spending to improve nearby streets and the creation of a fund that would accumulate money for area road improvements. Next, we wondered how much traffic near the site would increase if the developers added nothing. Denkler and Golden advised that analysts assume a 2 percent annual increase in car trips. At our request, Golden calculated that the 4,118 current unadjusted daily car trips would escalate by 37 percent to 5,653 in 2031—again, provided there is no expansion on the site. Our ruling Yard signs posted in opposition to a proposed Northwest Austin redevelopment state: 500 percent more traffic? Traffic studies filed in 2014 based on the developer's original proposal support the 500-percent figure, yet the developer later submitted a revised plan, and its May 2015 traffic analysis suggests at most a 381 percent increase in daily car trips, still a substantial spike. Perhaps the project and predicted traffic effects will continue to change. For now, taking into account the information available when the signs were made, we rate the claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

True

Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LPseeks a zoning changeto build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire said that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been trimmed to 10-story buildings or so, according toSteve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case.The 500% signs dont reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer witha coalitionopposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_1524

Did 50,000 'Freedom Convoy' Trucks Set Guinness World Record?

01/27/2022

In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada to protest the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, various claims emerged regarding the number of trucks involved in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even asserted that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the largest truck convoy. As of this writing, the freedom convoy has not earned a place in the Guinness World Records book. Furthermore, the claim that this convoy involved 50,000 trucks appears to be a gross exaggeration that contradicts all available evidence. The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness states: "The largest parade of trucks consisted of 480 trucks and was achieved by Tahya Misr Fund (Egypt), in Cairo, Egypt, on 20 November 2020. With a length of 7.5 km, Tahya Misr Fund was able to organize a parade of 480 trucks amid harsh weather and heavy rain, breaking the Guinness World Records title for the largest parade of trucks, which was achieved 16 years ago in the Netherlands with a parade size of 416 trucks; thus, the Tahya Misr Fund became the new record holder." This Guinness World Records entry provides a data point that makes us skeptical of the 50,000 truck claim. If a 480 truck convoy stretched 7.5 km, a 50,000 truck convoy would stretch 750 km (about 460 miles). We have seen no evidence to support the idea that the freedom convoy is anywhere near 460 miles long. So just how many trucks participated in this freedom convoy? There's no official count for the number of trucks involved. Estimates are also difficult because this big rig convoy includes a number of cars and other smaller vehicles. Furthermore, the "freedom convoy" has been a multi-day event, and some trucks may only participate for a portion of the journey. These variables make it challenging to estimate the number of trucks involved. We reached out to the Canadian Trucking Alliance for more information and will update this article if more information becomes available. Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply." Adrian Ghobrial, a reporter for the Toronto news outlet City News, stated that while thousands of people have come out to watch and support the truckers as they drive by, he was skeptical that the convoy consisted of more than 100 trucks. David Akin, the chief global correspondent with Global News, cited a report from the Ontario Provincial Police that recorded 113 trucks (as well as 276 personal vehicles) coming into Thunder Bay from Winnipeg. On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown with each tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number exceeded 50,000 trucks. The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. However, the organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, as they have reason to inflate these numbers. The number also seems implausible given what we know about the trucking industry in Canada. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they would also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate. The Canadian Trucking Alliance stated that "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated, with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nation's hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function."

False

In January 2022, a number of trucks participated in a convoy across Canada in protest of the country's requirement for cross-border truckers to be vaccinated for COVID-19. As videos of the so-called "freedom convoy" spread on social media, so did a number of claims concerning just how many trucks were participating in this event. These claims ranged from a few hundred to more than 50,000. Some even claimed that the freedom convoy had set a Guinness World Record for the world's largest truck convoy. The largest truck convoy on record was set in November 2020 in Cairo, Egypt. That convoy involved 480 trucks and stretched 7.5 km (4.6 miles). Guinness writes:Many Canadian news outlets have used the word "hundreds" to quantify the number of trucks in this convoy. The CBC, for example, reported: "Hundreds of truckers set off from British Columbia to Ottawa on Sunday to protest a federal vaccine mandate despite the urging of the country's largest trucking federation to comply."On social media, the estimate of trucks involved in this convoy has grown by the tweet. A post from Fox News host Sean Hannity, for example, claimed that the freedom convoy consisted of 10,000 trucks. Others claimed that this number was in excess of 50,000 trucks. The claim that 50,000 trucks are participating in this convoy appears to have originated with one of the protest's organizers. The organizers may not be the most reliable source for this figure, however, as they have reason to inflate these numbers. According to the Canadian Trucking Alliance, the cross-border vaccine mandate would impact about 15% (or about 16,000) of the country's truckers. If the 50,000 truck claim is to be believed, that would mean that not only would every one of those 16,000 truckers have to participate in the event, but they'd also need to be joined by 34,000 additional trucks who weren't impacted by the mandate. The Canadian Trucking Alliance said in a statement that the "the vast majority of the Canadian trucking industry is vaccinated with the overall industry vaccination rate among truck drivers closely mirroring that of the general public. Accordingly, most of our nations hard-working truck drivers are continuing to move cross-border and domestic freight to ensure our economy continues to function."

FMD_train_1215

Says Donald Trump has bankrupt four separate businesses.

07/11/2016

U.S. Sen. Mark Warner says presumptive Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton has a lot of ammunition to fire at Donald Trump's business record. To think that Mr. Trump is trying to lay out this proposition that he's a successful business guy. He's failed miserably, bankrupting four separate businesses, Warner, D-Va., said during a June 21 interview on CNN. We looked at Warner's contention that Trump bankrupted four businesses. Clinton has made similar charges against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, including on July 6 when she spoke in front of the shuttered Trump Plaza Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J. Earlier this year, many of Trump's GOP primary opponents also accused him of running businesses into the ground. Kevin Hall, Warner's communications director, sent us a series of media reports about Trump's business problems. Some Trump companies indeed have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcy law, which shields businesses from creditors as they reorganize with the hope of remaining open. Under court supervision, the companies devise a plan to pay back some of their liabilities over time. That's different from a Chapter 7 filing, which involves liquidating a company's assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors. PolitiFact National has explored several claims about Trump's business record and has tallied a list of bankruptcies for his companies. Let's take a look. 1991 bankruptcy: Trump's first bankruptcy came when he sought protection for the Trump Taj Mahal in Atlantic City. Trump funded most of the casino's $1 billion construction by using junk bonds with high interest rates, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer. When it sought Chapter 11 protection a year after its opening, the casino had about $3 billion in debt. As part of the restructuring, Trump cut his ownership stake in the Taj Mahal by half and sold his airline as well as his personal 282-foot yacht, The Washington Post said in an August 2015 story. 1992 bankruptcies: Two more of Trump's Atlantic City casinos - the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino - sought Chapter 11 protection amid heavy debt and cash flow problems, United Press International reported at the time. A fourth bankruptcy also occurred in 1992 when Trump sought protection for The Plaza hotel in midtown Manhattan. The hotel, which Trump bought for $390 million in 1988, had accumulated more than $550 million in debt. Trump gave up a 49 percent ownership stake and remained CEO, although he had little control over the day-to-day operations of the company, according to The New York Times. Most recent bankruptcies: Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 when his casinos - including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina, and Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana - amassed an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to The Associated Press. Trump agreed to reduce his share in the company from 47 percent to 27 percent in a restructuring plan, but he still was the company's largest single shareholder and remained in charge of its operations. Several years later, Trump Entertainment Resorts - formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts - was slammed by the Great Recession and missed a $53.1 million interest payment in December 2008, according to ABC News. The company declared Chapter 11 in February 2009. After negotiating with the board of directors, Trump resigned as the company's chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trump's name in licensing. All told, the record shows that three of Trump's Atlantic City casinos as well as The Plaza hotel went bankrupt in the 1990s. His overall casino and resort company went bankrupt twice in the 2000s while operating under different names. So you could argue that five Trump companies have gone into bankruptcy. Beyond the numbers: The next question is whether Trump is personally to blame for driving these ventures into bankruptcy, as Warner's statement suggests. Trump defends his use of bankruptcy laws, saying they've allowed him to keep businesses afloat and that he's rarely relied on them during a career of making hundreds of business deals. In a statement released the day Clinton made her Atlantic City trip, Trump pegged the number of bankruptcies at four. "It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs," Trump said in a July 6 statement. Experts told PolitiFact National last September that Trump has had a high number of bankruptcies. But they didn't entirely blame him for the Chapter 11 filings and noted that most occurred in the gambling industry, which has struggled. A 1991 article by United Press International about the financial woes of the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino said the Atlantic City gaming industry was depressed and that nine of the city's 12 casinos saw declining revenues in 1990, with those two Trump casinos seeing the biggest revenue losses. The New York Times noted in a story earlier this month that Trump's share of the overall Atlantic City casino market started to fall in 1997, and that while revenues for non-Trump gaming ventures in the city rose over the following five years, revenue at Trump casinos declined. Trump told the newspaper that his casinos ran into trouble because they began competing against each other - a statement that The Times said was a tacit acknowledgment that he overbuilt. Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine, told the Los Angeles Times last year that Trump put his Atlantic City casinos in so much debt that subsequent managers couldn't manage them properly. But Michael Viscount, an Atlantic City lawyer who represented unsecured creditors during the 2004 Chapter 11 filing of the Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts, doesn't blame Trump for the bankruptcies. He told Forbes magazine in 2011 that he didn't blame Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies. Viscount said creditors knew what they were getting into when they lent Trump money. "They've all played this game before, in the insolvency space. The company that possessed his name filed bankruptcy because it was overleveraged," Viscount told Forbes. "What does that tell you? People want to lend him money. He does grandiose things with it." Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, said in an August 2015 post on a blog dedicated to bankruptcy and credit issues that a Chapter 11 filing alone doesn't demonstrate a lack of business acumen. "Sometimes businesses go bankrupt because of poor management, but sometimes it's because of factors beyond their control," Levitin wrote. "And indeed, how much, if at all, was Trump involved in the management of the companies?" Levitin wrote. "I wouldn't be shocked if he was basically licensing his name." Levitin told PolitiFact National last September that it's not fair to put all the blame on Trump for his company's bankruptcies because he's acted as any investor would. "Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy," Levitin said. "The only difference is that Trump puts his name on his companies, which means people associate them with him, but he's not at all the leader in the bankruptcy space," Levitin said. "These bankruptcies were not defining moments for Trump and shouldn't color our view of him." Our ruling: Warner said Trump has bankrupted four separate businesses. The number, if anything, is conservative. We count five. But beyond the number, Warner's statement also asserts that Trump was the cause of the bankruptcies, and that's harder to parse out. There's no doubt he had a role in many of the failings, having larded his casino operations with huge debts. But analysts note that Trump wasn't acting alone; he had willing investors who put up big sums of money in the risky gaming industry. There are also questions about how involved he was in running all of the casinos that bore his name. So on the whole, we rate Warner's statement Mostly True.

True

To think that Mr. Trump is trying to lay out this proposition that hes a successful business guy. Hes failed miserably, bankrupt four separate businesses, Warner, D-Va.,saidduring a June 21 interview on CNN.We looked at Warners contention that Trump bankrupted four businesses. Clinton has made similar charges against the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, including on July 6 when shespokein front of the shuttered Trump Plaza Casino and Hotel in Atlantic City, N.J..Some Trump companies indeed have sought protection under Chapter 11 of the federal bankruptcylaw, which shields businesses from creditors as as they reorganize with hope of remaining open. Under court supervision, the companies devise a plan to pay back some of its liabilities over time. Thats different from a Chapter 7 filing, which involves liquidating a companys assets and distributing the proceeds to creditors.Trump funded most of the casinos $1 billion construction by using junk bonds with high interest rates,accordingto the Philadelphia Inquirer. When it sought Chapter 11 protection a year after its opening, the casino had about $3 billion in debt.As part of the restructuring, Trump cut his ownership stake in the Taj Mahal by half and sold his airline as well as his personal 282-foot yacht, The Washington Post said in an August 2015story.Two more of Trumps Atlantic City casinos - the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino - sought Chapter 11 protection amid heavy debt and cash flow problems, United Press Internationalreportedat the time.The hotel, which Trumpboughtfor $390 million in 1988, had accumulated more than $550 million in debt. Trump gave up a 49 percent ownership stake and remained CEO, although he had little control over the day-to-day operations of the company,accordingto The New York Times.Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts filed for bankruptcy in 2004 when his casinos - including the Trump Taj Mahal, Trump Marina and Trump Plaza in Atlantic City, and a riverboat casino in Indiana - amassed an estimated $1.8 billion in debt, according to The Associated Press.Several years later, Trump Entertainment Resorts - formerly Trump Hotels and Casinos Resorts - was slammed by the Great Recession and missed a $53.1 million interest payment in December 2008, according toABC News.The companydeclaredChapter 11 in February 2009. After negotiating with the board of directors, Trump resigned as the companys chairman and had his corporate stake in the company reduced to 10 percent. The company continued to use Trumps name in licensing.It is an effective and commonly used practice in business to use bankruptcy proceedings to restructure a business and ultimately save jobs, Trumpsaidin a July 6 statement.ExpertstoldPolitiFact National last September that Trump has had a high number of bankruptcies. But they didnt entirely blame him for the Chapter 11 filings and noted that most occurred in the gambling industry, which has struggled.A 1991articleby United Press International about the financial woes of the Trump Castle and Trump Plaza and Casino said the Atlantic City gaming industry was depressed and that nine of the citys 12 casinos saw declining revenues in 1990, with those two Trump casinos seeing the biggest revenue losses.The New York Times noted in astoryearlier this month that Trumps share of the overall Atlantic City casino market started to fall in 1997, and that while revenues for non-Trump gaming ventures in the city rose over the following five years, revenue at Trump casinos declined.Roger Gros, publisher of Global Gaming Business magazine,toldthe Los Angeles Times last year that Trump put his Atlantic City casinos in so much debt that subsequent managers couldn't manage them properly.But Michael Viscount, an Atlantic City lawyer who represented unsecured creditors during the 2004 Chapter 11 filing of the Trump Hotels and Casino resorts, doesnt blame Trump for the bankruptcies. HetoldForbes magazine in 2011 that he didnt blame Trump for his Atlantic City casino bankruptcies. Viscount said creditors knew what they were getting into when they lent Trump money.Adam Levitin, a law professor at Georgetown University, said in an August 2015poston a blog dedicated to bankruptcy and credit issues that a Chapter 11 filing alone doesnt demonstrate a lack of business acumen. Sometimes businesses go bankrupt because of poor management, but sometimes its because of factors beyond their control, Levitin wrote.Levitin told PolitiFact National last September that its not fair to put all the blame on Trump for his companys bankruptcies because hes acted as any investor would. Investors often own many non-integrated companies, which they fund by taking on debt, and some of them inevitably file for bankruptcy,Levitinsaid.

FMD_train_683

Does Jeff Sessions Have Investments in the Private Prison Industry?

05/16/2017

On 12 April 2017, the partisan website Crooks and Liars reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions owns shares in the private prison industry and stands to gain financially from some of his recent policy announcements. It reported, "It's more than a conflict of interest. The more people Attorney General Jeff Sessions sends to private prisons, the more money he shoves in his pockets." From announcing he wants federal law enforcement agencies to arrest people for a little bit of weed to ordering federal prosecutors to find ways to convict more immigrants, Sessions is looking for ways to provide more clients to private prisons contracted by the federal government. As Attorney General Sessions fills these private prisons, he is making money. According to his latest financial disclosures required by Congress, dated December 23, 2016, he divested from other investments that were found to be in conflict. In these disclosures, he also lists numerous Vanguard funds. Vanguard owns more private prison stock than any other investment management company. A popular meme also broadcast this claim: The article lists three funds that Sessions has shares in, all of which are managed by the investment firm Vanguard, and claims that the funds contain holdings in two leading companies in the private prison industry: CoreCivic and GEO Group. This is true of only two of those funds. The third seems to be listed as the result of a mix-up. The article rightly states that one of these funds, the Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund, contains holdings in "GEO Holdings Corporation." However, this is a Japanese company that has no relation to the Florida-based private prison company GEO Group, as confirmed to Snopes.com by a spokesperson for GEO Group. As for the other two investment funds, federal financial disclosure records show that the Attorney General owns between $31,003 and $115,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, yielding a total of between $1,403 and $4,500 in income per year for Sessions. And this fund does indeed include CoreCivic and GEO Group. However, what the article does not mention is that CoreCivic and GEO Group constitute just two out of 3,557 companies in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund. The Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is what's known as an Excepted Investment Fund (EIF)—that means the fund is independently managed (that is, not by Sessions himself) and either publicly traded or "widely diversified" (that is, it doesn't focus on one particular sector of the economy), according to the Office of Government Ethics. A brief look at this particular fund shows that its more than 3,500 holdings relate to companies from throughout the economy, including well-known names such as Cracker Barrel, Zillow, and Rite Aid. The same is true of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund, in which Sessions has between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of shares, yielding between $201 and $1,000 in income for him per year. While it does include holdings in CoreCivic and GEO Group, these are just two of 1,422 companies listed in the fund, which come from a variety of sectors and include names like Domino's Pizza and JetBlue Airways. According to Kathleen Clark, a professor at Washington University School of Law and an expert on legal and government ethics, investments in widely diversified funds such as these are unlikely to leave a public official vulnerable to conflicts of interest. "If it's a diversified fund as opposed to being a sector fund [focused on one sector of the economy], then it's not subject to the conflict of interest statute." Clark told us that even if one or two companies in a widely diversified fund were to perform well and increase their value, the presence of a large number of other companies in that fund means, "It is exceedingly unlikely that such an interest would influence the government official, or that the public would perceive that as a significant risk." This is because income from a widely diversified fund, like the two we're examining, is based on the aggregate value of the companies within that fund. Remember that in one fund, CoreCivic and GEO Group represent two out of 3,557 companies, and in the other, they represent two out of 1,422. Now remember that the Attorney General's total annual income from the first fund is between $1,403 and $4,500, and from the second fund, it's between $201 and $1,000. So while it's true that Jeff Sessions has some shares in funds that include holdings in two private prison companies, it's misleading to say that this means he stands to gain in any meaningful way from an increase in the value of those companies. The Attorney General's annual income from these funds—which is relatively low—depends on the overall performance of those funds. A surge in the value of CoreCivic or the GEO Group would very quickly be canceled out by a dip in the value of just a handful of the thousands of other companies included in those two funds, and because these are widely diversified Excepted Investment Funds, they don't fall foul of conflict of interest regulations.

NEI

On 12 April 2017, the partisan web site Crooks and Liars reported that Attorney General Jeff Sessions owns shares in the private prison industry and stands to gain financially from some of his recent policy announcements:The third seems to be listed as the result of a mix-up. The article rightly states that one of these funds, the Vanguard Total International Stock Index fund, contains holdings in "GEO Holdings Corporation". However, this is a Japanese company that has no relation to the Florida-based private prison company GEO Group, as confirmed to Snopes.com by a spokesperson for GEO Group.As for the other two investment funds, federal financial disclosure records show that the Attorney General owns between $31,003 and $115,000 worth of shares in the Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund, yielding a total of between $1,403 and $4,500 in income per year for Sessions.Vanguard Total Stock Market Index Fund is what's known as an Excepted Investment Fund (EIF) - that means the fund is independently managed (that is, not by Sessions himself), and either publicly traded or "widely-diversified" (that is, it doesn't focus on one particular sector of the economy), according to the Office of Government Ethics. The same is true of the Vanguard Small-Cap Index fund, in which Sessions has between $15,001 and $50,000 worth of shares, yielding between $201 and $1,000 in income for him, per year.

FMD_train_1327

Last year, Texas allocated nearly one-third of its budget to Medicaid, amounting to one-third of all the state's expenditures.

03/28/2017

Extolling the health care act that Republicans briefly advocated as an improvement on the Obamacare law, Sen. John Cornyn highlighted the significant costs of Medicaid to the Texas state government. In remarks made on the Senate floor on March 9, 2017, which were brought to our attention by a reader, the Texas Republican prefaced his claim by stating that state and federal governments spend an enormous amount of money on Medicaid, the federal-state entitlement program providing health coverage to the poor, especially mothers, children, and the disabled. This program was launched by Congress in 1965 as part of President Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. Cornyn continued: "In Texas, for example, my state spent close to a third of its budget on Medicaid last year, a third of all state spending." We emailed Cornyn's office to request his sources and then turned to the authoritative May 2016 Fiscal Size-up report from the Legislative Budget Board, which advises state legislators on spending matters. That report, Cornyn spokesman Drew Brandewie later advised by email, was the basis of Cornyn's claim, along with other published accounts of Medicaid's share of the two-year budget approved by the 2015 Legislature. According to the report, the 2016-17 Texas budget allocated $61.2 billion in funds from all sources, including state and federal aid, to Medicaid, which recently had a monthly caseload of 4.1 million residents, up from about 2.1 million in 2002, according to a 2017 LBB presentation. That amount over the two years running through August 2017 accounted for 29.3 percent of $209.1 billion in All Funds appropriations. Federal funds drive Medicaid budgets because, by law, the federal share of a state's Medicaid expenditures cannot be less than 50 percent, though the share is adjusted for each state using a formula that compares the state's average per capita income to the national average. In Texas, in fiscal 2016, the federal share amounted to about 57 percent, according to the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Additionally, each Texas dollar spent on Medicaid that year was matched by $1.33 in federal aid, the foundation states. We noticed another way to frame the issue, as Cornyn referred to Medicaid accounting for one-third of all state spending in 2016. That is not correct. According to the Fiscal Size-up, the 2016-17 budget allocated $25.2 billion in state general revenue and GR from dedicated accounts—meaning state funds—to Medicaid. Those billions, we calculated, amounted to 22.1 percent of nearly $114 billion in total GR and GR-D spending in the two-year budget. Separately, we asked the Texas Health and Human Services Commission how much Medicaid absorbs in money budgeted by lawmakers. By email, Christine Mann shared an agency chart showing the escalating share of Medicaid spending in the budget, considering both state and federal aid, from fiscal 2000 through fiscal 2015. Medicaid absorbed about 20 percent of budgeted state and federal funds in 2000, the chart indicates, but it has accounted for 25 percent or more of the All Funds budget since 2010. Spending decisions remain. Mann also pointed out that exactly how much legislators commit to Medicaid for the budget that runs through August 2017 will depend on actions during the session that ends on May 29. As of mid-March 2017, Mann said commission staff expected Medicaid spending to be around $63 billion in state and federal funds. Traditionally, lawmakers adjust for increases in Medicaid caseloads and costs that accumulate between sessions by approving short-term supplemental appropriations. A March 2017 LBB document summarizes a version of House Bill 2, which proposes additional spending through August 2017. From figures in the document, we calculated that lawmakers could end up authorizing $63.8 billion in spending, both state and federal, on Medicaid through the 2016-17 biennium; barring changes, that would account for 29.8 percent of the state's total budgeted spending of $214.3 billion. We also sought insight from Oliver Bernstein of the budget-savvy, liberal-leaning Center for Public Policy Priorities. Bernstein emailed us slightly different figures for what is likely to be spent on Medicaid through August 2017. He also suggested by email that Medicaid's heightened share of total spending is partly due to cuts in state support for public schools and institutions of higher education; when other significant items are reduced, Medicaid's budgetary significance grows. Our ruling: Cornyn said Texas spent close to a third of its budget on Medicaid last year, a third of all state spending. Nearly 30 percent of state plus federal aid in the 2016-17 Texas budget went to Medicaid. About 22 percent of state funds alone were appropriated for Medicaid. We rate this claim Mostly True.

True

Extolling thehealth care act that Republicans briefly advocatedas an improvement on the Obamacare law, Sen. John Cornyn singled out how much Medicaid costs Texas state government.We emailed Cornyns office to request his backup, then turned to the authoritative May 2016Fiscal Size-up reportfrom the Legislative Budget Board, which advises state legislators on spending matters.According to the report, the 2016-17 Texas budget devoted $61.2 billion in funds from all sources, including state and federal aid, to Medicaid, which lately has had a monthly caseload of 4.1 million residents, up from about 2.1 million in 2002, according to a 2017LBB presentation--and that amount over the two years running through August 2017 accounted for 29.3 percent of $209.1 billion in All Funds appropriations.Federal funds drive Medicaid budgets because by law, the federal share of a states Medicaid expenditures cant be less than 50 percent though the share is refined for each state using a formula comparing the states average per capita income to the national average. In Texas in fiscal 2016, the federal share broke out to about 57 percent,according tothe Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. Also, each Texas dollar spent on Medicaid that year was matched by $1.33 in federal aid, the foundation says.Traditionally, lawmakers adjust for increases in Medicaid caseloads and costs that build up between sessions by signing off on short-term supplemental appropriations. A March 2017LBB documentsummarizes a version of House Bill 2, which proposes additional spending through August 2017. From figures in the document, we calculated that lawmakers could end up authorizing $63.8 billion in spending, both state and federal, on Medicaid, through the 2016-17 biennium; barring changes, that would break out to 29.8 percent of the states total budgeted spending of $214.3 billion.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_792

Walmart Bows Down to Sharia Law?

11/13/2014

Claim: An Ohio Walmart store has begun selling halal meat. : Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2014] Is Walmart going to start selling sharia compliant meat? Origins: On 12 November 2014, Miami (Ohio) University's student newspaper, The Miami Student, published an article about a local Walmart's decision to add a halal meat section to their grocery aisles: article Upon the request of Muslim students at Miami University, Walmart recently made the decision to provide halal-certified meat at the Oxford location. Store manager Elijah Woodard made a formal announcement on Oct. 21 that the store would be accommodating these requests. "I appreciated the students bringing this interest to our attention," Woodard said. "I am pleased to announce that we have set a halal meat section in the store." Visiting assistant professor Tareq Hasan Khan and the Muslim Student Association (MSA) had petitioned all local grocers to carry Halal meat. So far, the local Walmart is the only store to have obliged to the request: Between Khan and members of the Muslim Student Association (MSA), efforts were made to convince Walmart to provide the Halal meat. Many students reached out directly to the management at Walmart. In addition, a petition was passed around on the Internet. The petition acquired nearly 50 signatures and was directed at all Oxford grocers including MOON co-op and Kroger. Thus far, Walmart is the only provider who has responded to the requests of the Muslim students. "For halal meat, we needed to drive from Oxford to Cincinnati, around 40 miles one way, almost every week," Khan said. "This long drive is very tiresome and takes about two hours only to go to Cincinnati and return back." This case is not the first instance of a Walmart store's choosing to carry Halal meat: Similar products have been sold at dozens of Walmart stores around the U.S. since at least 2010. Still, the announcement that the Oxford location had added a halal meat section stirred up anger on social media sites: Walmart social media While some people viewed Walmart's decision to sell halal meat as proof the company was "bowing down" to Sharia law, the Associated Press noted demand for halal products has been on the rise throughout the world: The worldwide market for Islamically permitted goods, called halal, has grown to more than half a billion dollars annually. Ritually slaughtered meat is a mainstay, but the halal industry is much broader, including foods and seasoning that omit alcohol, pork products and other forbidden ingredients, along with cosmetics, finance and clothing. Corporations have been courting immigrant Muslim communities in Europe for several years. Nestle, for example, has about 20 factories in Europe with halal-certified production lines and advertises to Western Muslims through its marketing campaign called "Taste of Home." Nestle plans to increase its ethnic and halal offerings in Europe in coming years. In the United States, iconic American companies such as McDonald's (which already has a popular halal menu overseas) and Wal-Mart have entered the halal arena. Although Walmart has opted to offer halal meat in their Oxford store, it appears it is making such decisions on a case-by-case basis rather than instituting a country-wide policy to that effect. Last updated: 19 February 2015 Zoll, Rachel. "US Muslims: A New Consumer Niche." Business Week. 27 December 2010.

True

Origins: On 12 November 2014, Miami (Ohio) University's student newspaper, The Miami Student, published an article about a local Walmart's decision to add a halal meat section to their grocery aisles:This case is not the first instance of a Walmart store's choosing to carry Halal meat: Similar products have been sold at dozens of Walmart stores around the U.S. since at least 2010. Still, the announcement that the Oxford location had added a halal meat section stirred up anger on social media sites:

FMD_train_1429

Does this internet joke show evidence of racial discrimination in cases of tax evasion prosecution?

03/15/2019

One of the more unusual political memes we've come across presented four different cases of tax-related financial improprieties to suggest that tax-evasion prosecutions were somehow influenced by racial bias against non-blacks. However, the "Tax Racism" meme offered examples, not all of which were actual cases of tax evasion, so widely spaced in time and differing in circumstances as to be unhelpful in making any point at all about either tax fraud or race. Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with or imprisoned for non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity. On June 4, 2003, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed securities fraud charges against Martha Stewart and her former stockbroker, Peter Bacanovic. The complaint, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges that Stewart committed illegal insider trading when she sold stock in a biopharmaceutical company, ImClone Systems, Inc., on December 27, 2001, after receiving an unlawful tip from Bacanovic, who was then a broker with Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Incorporated. The Commission further alleges that Stewart and Bacanovic subsequently created an alibi for Stewart's ImClone sales and concealed important facts during SEC and criminal investigations into her trades. In a separate action, the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York obtained an indictment charging Stewart and Bacanovic criminally for their false statements concerning Stewart's ImClone trades. Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine, a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest. Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue; the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion. By the mid-1920s, notorious Chicago mobster Alphonse Gabriel Capone was reportedly taking in nearly $60 million annually ($878 million in 2018 dollars) from a variety of illegal activities, primarily Prohibition-era bootlegging. Capone was dubbed "Public Enemy No. 1" after the 1929 Saint Valentine's Day Massacre, in which gunmen allegedly hired by him posed as police officers to murder seven members of a rival gang, leading to increased public pressure on the government to rein Capone in. Federal authorities had difficulty gathering sufficient hard evidence to convict Capone on any substantial criminal charges, so they took what was then a novel approach: Even if they couldn't prove Capone was making his millions illegally, they could prove he wasn't paying income tax on his ill-gotten gains. Despite his obviously lavish lifestyle, Capone never filed a federal income tax return and claimed he had no taxable income, reportedly boasting at one point that, "They can't collect legal taxes from illegal money." He was proved wrong. IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction, he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48. In a literal sense, Capone was indeed jailed for non-payment of income taxes, but the tax evasion charges were essentially a proxy for prosecuting the mobster over the multitude of vastly worse and violent crimes with which he was connected, as well as the immense profits he derived from those criminal activities. Capone was by no means an otherwise upright and law-abiding citizen who was thrown in prison simply because he didn't pay his income taxes. At this point in our narrative, we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons—maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advice, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of cases and will instead work with offenders to facilitate payment of their back debts, rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them. At the other end of the spectrum are those who actively engage in fraud to evade the full payment of taxes: They fail to disclose their full income, hide financial transactions, claim deductions to which they are not entitled, disguise monies earned as something other than income, or otherwise file falsified tax returns. The IRS will, at their discretion, seek prosecution in egregious cases of these forms of tax evasion. Leona Helmsley, derisively known as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who, along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley, owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building. Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that "We don't pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes," fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties to avoid paying immense sums of taxes. Some of Helmsley's luster was tarnished in 1986 when court documents and law enforcement officials said she had failed to pay sales taxes in New York on hundreds of thousands of dollars of jewelry she purchased at Van Cleef & Arpels, the exclusive Manhattan store. Two senior store officers were indicted on charges that they operated a scheme by which customers with out-of-state addresses could have their purchases recorded as being mailed to them, thus avoiding city and state taxes. In 1987, a series of adverse articles in The New York Post about the Helmsleys, set off by one of their disgruntled employees, led to a broad investigation. The following year, Harry and Leona Helmsley were indicted by federal and state authorities on charges that they had evaded more than $4 million in income taxes by fraudulently claiming as business expenses luxuries they purchased for Dunnellen Hall in Greenwich, Conn., a 28-room Jacobean mansion on 26 acres with a sweeping view of Long Island Sound that they bought in 1983. In 235 counts in state and federal indictments brought by Robert Abrams, then the New York State attorney general, and Rudolph W. Giuliani, then the United States attorney and later mayor of New York, the Helmsleys were accused of draining their hotel and real estate empire to provide themselves with such extravagances at Dunnellen Hall as a $1 million marble dance floor above a swimming pool, a $45,000 silver clock, a $210,000 mahogany card table, a $130,000 stereo system, and $500,000 worth of jade art objects. Nothing was too small or personal to be billed to their businesses, from Mrs. Helmsley's bras to a white lace and pink satin dress and jacket and a white chiffon skirt—the dress and skirt were entered in the Park Lane Hotel records as uniforms for the staff. Mrs. Helmsley was also charged with defrauding Helmsley stockholders by receiving $83,333 a month in secret consulting fees. She was convicted of 33 felony counts related to her evasion of $1.2 million in federal income taxes. She was sentenced to 16 years in prison (reduced to four years on appeal), fined $7.1 million for tax fraud, and ordered to pay some $1.7 million in back federal and state taxes. She began serving her sentence in 1992 and was released from federal prison in Connecticut in 1994 after having served less than half her sentence. Where along the tax-evader spectrum between "legitimate dispute" and "willful tax fraud" civil rights activist Al Sharpton might fall is difficult to determine. Claims were made in the press in 2014 that Sharpton owed some $4.5 million in unpaid taxes, but the accuracy of that number and how much of the money owed might already have been repaid by Sharpton were unclear, and his tax-troubles narrative involved a muddied mixture of personal, business, and non-profit finances, as well as liabilities for federal taxes, state taxes, payroll taxes, and personal income taxes. Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though. Today, Mr. Sharpton still faces personal federal tax liens of more than $3 million and state tax liens of $777,657, according to records. Mr. Sharpton said the federal liens resulted from a demand by the IRS that he pay taxes on earnings from speaking engagements that he had turned over to the National Action Network. He said he was up to date on payment plans for both the federal and state liens, so, he claimed, the outstanding balance was much lower than records showed. But according to state officials, his balance on the state liens is actually $220,000 greater now than when they were first filed during the years 2008 through 2010. A spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said state law did not allow him to provide any further details. Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again that his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report, which stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller. During a news conference at the headquarters of his National Action Network in Harlem, Mr. Sharpton sought to refute the assertion that there were $4.5 million in state and federal tax liens outstanding against him and the for-profit businesses he controls. He said that the liens had been paid down, although he declined to say by how much, and that he was current on all taxes he was obligated to pay under settlement agreements with tax authorities. "We're talking about old taxes," he said, adding, "We're not talking about anything new. So all of this, as if I'm not paying taxes while I'm doing whatever I'm doing, it reads all right, but it just is not true." The accuracy of Mr. Sharpton's assertion that the amount he owes the federal government is much lower than the $3.6 million shown in records could not be verified. A spokesman for the Internal Revenue Service said federal law prohibited the agency from divulging any details about individual taxpayers. As for the state tax liens, Mr. Sharpton's assertion that he had paid them down conflicts with information provided by state officials. State authorities filed tax liens against Mr. Sharpton in 2008 and 2009, and again in 2010 against a for-profit business he controls, Revals Communications, all totaling $695,000. But a spokesman for the State Department of Taxation and Finance said the amount due had actually increased to $916,000. Regardless of the numbers, Sharpton wasn't put in prison because tax officials did not deem his case to be an exceptional one of scofflaw tax fraud or evasion that merited prosecution, instead working with him to facilitate his paying down the debt. The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoing spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions.

False

Martha Stewart, the entrepreneur who rose to prominence as the author of books on cooking, entertaining, and decorating, was not charged with, or imprisoned for, non-payment of income taxes. Stewart was found guilty in March 2004 of felony charges of conspiracy, obstruction of an agency proceeding, and making false statements to federal investigators in a case related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation into insider trading activity:Stewart was sentenced to 5 months in prison and also settled a civil suit with the SEC by paying a $195,000 fine (a penalty that reflected four times the amount of stock value loss she avoided by taking advantage of inside information, plus interest).Stewart did engage in a dispute with the state of New York in 2002 over unpaid property taxes that she contended she didn't owe because she hardly spent any time in that state, and she was eventually ordered by a judge to pay $220,000 in back taxes plus penalties. But contrary to the false impression created by this meme, she was not prosecuted or jailed over that issue the time she spent in prison was solely related to a later insider-trading case, not to tax evasion.IRS and Treasury agents gathered evidence that Capone had made millions of dollars in untaxed income, and the mobster was eventually indicted on 22 counts of federal income tax evasion. After conviction he was sentenced in 1931 to 11 years in prison, fined $50,000, and ordered to pay back taxes in the amount of $215,000. Capone was released from prison in 1939 with time off for good behavior and retired to Florida, where he died in 1947 at the relatively young age of 48.At this point in our narrative we need to distinguish between different forms of tax evasion. At one end of the spectrum are those who haven't engaged in any fraudulent behavior but simply didn't or can't pay their taxes for any number of reasons maybe they didn't plan or withhold prudently, they received poor financial advisement, they had legitimate confusion or dispute over what constituted taxable income, or they simply overspent and ended up in debt. Although non-payment of taxes is a crime, the IRS will not usually seek prosecution in these types of case and will instead work with offenders in order to facilitate payment of their back debts (rather than making repayment difficult or impossible by incarcerating them).Leona Helmsley, derisively known by the nickname as the "Queen of Mean," was a billionaire who along with her husband, real estate investor and broker Harry Helmsley owned a vast portfolio of real estate and other assets, including a chain of hotels and the iconic Empire State Building.Leona Helmsley, who once reportedly asserted that We dont pay taxes. Only the little people pay taxes, fell into the latter class of tax evader, falsely manipulating her personal finances, business expenses, and dealings with third parties in order to avoid paying immense sums of taxes:Much of the dispute over the "why" and "how much" of Sharpton's unpaid tax bill stemmed from the operations of the National Action Network, a not-for-profit, civil rights organization founded by Sharpton in 1991. Sharpton contended in a 2014 New York Times account that he incurred an unexpected tax liability because he was taxed personally for income he had given to the non-profit organization, and that he was up to date on repayment plans. Officials contested that the amount he was in arrears for in unpaid taxes had actually grown larger, though:Sharpton then contested that news account, asserting that it referenced "old taxes" and insisting again his tax liens had been paid down below the $4.5 million debt claimed in the New York Times report that stated Sharpton's unpaid tax debt had nonetheless grown larger, not smaller:The conclusion here is a simple one: Cherry-picking four very disparate cases of financial wrongdoings spanning several decades, while ignoring the many other instances of tax evasion successfully prosecuted by the U.S. government, documents nothing about any purported racial bias in such prosecutions.

FMD_train_1016

Was there a Federal study that was banned that suggested refugees generate more government income than they require in expenses?

12/12/2018

One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on! A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government: The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan. "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees." The New Yorker. 13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld. "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low." The New York Times. 17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees." The New York Times. 18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber. "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees." The Washington Post. 20 November 2015. The New York Times. "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees." 19 September 2017.

True

One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits.Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)

FMD_train_467

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

08/31/2020

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

True

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

FMD_train_1058

Was Target's Stock adversely affected by their transgender bathroom policy?

03/01/2017

On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth due to the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity. Reported Target's stock value is now down by 30 percent since it sparked a consumer boycott by embracing the transgender political agenda. That 30 percent drop has slashed investors' wealth by roughly $15 billion. On Tuesday, the stock fell to $58.78, down from its April 19 high of $83.98. In contrast, Walmart is up 3 percent since April, and Kohl's is down less than one percent. Company officials indirectly acknowledged the consumer boycott. "Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores," Target CEO Brian Cornell said in a company statement. The company also admitted that it would likely continue to experience losses throughout the year. On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national debate on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that became colloquially known as the "bathroom bill," which required public single-sex restrooms to be used only by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy and Target's definitive stance prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people had signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017. Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was attributed to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" refers to projected earnings). The drop in Target's stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event. According to Edward Jones analyst Brian Yarbough, Wall Street was expecting Target to project earnings of $5.30 per share, but the company instead provided guidance of $3.80 to $4.20 per share, which was "well below" expectations, prompting the drop in share value. According to Reuters, Target's decline dragged others down with it: Target's plunge prompted declines across the retail sector. Walmart Stores Inc. was down 2.0 percent, with Kroger Co. down 1.2 percent and Macy's Inc. off 1.7 percent. Dollar General Corp. fell 4.2 percent. What is affecting Target and other retailers has been competition with all-online retailers like Amazon, which do not have the overhead costs of brick-and-mortar locations. Target, for example, has 1,803 stores. "Online players don't have a huge network of stores, and since they don't have that cost, they can offer lower prices," Yarbough said. Customers also have the immediate ability to do price comparisons with smartphones. These changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell: "Our fourth-quarter results reflect the impact of rapidly changing consumer behavior, which drove very strong digital growth but unexpected softness in our stores. At our meeting with the financial community this morning, we will provide details on the meaningful investments we're making in our business and financial model, which will position Target for long-term, sustainable growth in this new era of retail. We will accelerate our investments in a smart network of physical and digital assets as well as our exclusive and differentiated assortment, including the launch of more than 12 new brands, representing more than $10 billion of our sales, over the next two years. In addition, we will invest in lower gross margins to ensure we are clearly and competitively priced every day. While the transition to this new model will present headwinds to our sales and profit performance in the short term, we are confident that these changes will best position Target for continued success over the long term." Although Target offers online shopping, profits there tend to be lower due to associated costs like shipping and price competition from the likes of Amazon. Retailers are struggling to survive, with more profitable in-store sales lagging and lower profit margins due to a growing number of online shoppers. Although its e-commerce operation is growing quickly, Target reported its third straight quarter of lower sales from existing stores, citing "unexpected softness" and raising new questions about the health of large national retailers in the United States. Target also forecast first-quarter profit well below Wall Street estimates. Shares sank 13 percent, on track for their biggest one-day percentage drop in more than 18 years. Target's stock has lost a quarter of its value since the 2016 holiday season started in November and is now trading at its lowest level since August 2014. Target maintains that the bathroom policy has had no effects on its business, with company spokeswoman Erika Winkels telling us in an email, "We have made it clear over time that we've seen no material impact on the business based on the bathroom policy. We don't have anything new or different to share." A poor performance in the 2016 holiday season was also attributed to online sales outpacing foot traffic, but Target is, again, not the only chain feeling the effects: Department stores across the country are paying the price for underestimating Amazon this holiday season. Macy's and Kohl's both reported lower-than-expected sales during the all-important end-of-year retail period and announced a spate of store closures that will lead to thousands of lost jobs. Sears has even been reduced to selling off one of its iconic brands after a double-digit sales slide. Industry observers blame online competition, as well as department store brands' own shortfalls in adapting to a fundamental shift in consumer behavior. Nevertheless, Neil Saunders, managing director of GlobalData Retail, told us that Target could be worse off than it is: "It's in a much better position than some retailers because its balance sheet is still robust, whereas Sears and Macy's are in a very difficult position. With Target, it's much more about tweaking and reinvention at the edges. [The guidance] wasn't great, but not as bad as other people." Saunders told Reuters that while Walmart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing." "Target is neither a full-line grocer nor a player with lots of niche specialty products; it is neither a high-end player nor a price-focused discounter," he said. It is difficult to say with certainty whether Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it. Target's late February 2017 stock drop, however, was the result of announcements made during an investor day event and cannot be attributed to their policy on bathroom use.

False

On 28 February 2017, Breitbart.com reported that big box retailer Target's stock had "crashed," losing a combined total of $15 billion in investor wealth, because of the chain's announcement in 2016 that it would allow transgender customers and employees to use bathrooms corresponding to their gender identity:On 19 April 2016, Target announced that transgender customers and employees were free to use the restroom that corresponded to their gender identity amid a national row on the subject during the 2016 election cycle. The announcement came after North Carolina enacted the controversial HB 2 in March 2016, a law that came to be colloquially termed the "bathroom bill," and required public single-sex restrooms only be used by people of the corresponding biological sex. The controversy, and Target's definitive stance, prompted conservative groups like the American Family Association (AFA) to launch a boycott. Nearly 1.5 million people have signed the AFA's petition as of 1 March 2017.Target shares did plunge on 28 February 2017, but it wasn't due to its nearly year-old bathroom policy. The drop was due to 2017 guidance announced during an investor day event. Projections were far lower than expected by Wall Street analysts (the term "guidance" means projected earnings). The drop in Target stock corresponds to the announcement made at their investor event: Source: Yahoo! FinanceThese changing patterns are reflected in a statement given by Target CEO Brian Cornell:Saunders told Reuters that while Wal-Mart has been buoyed by successfully offering groceries, Target has not been able to keep up on that front, calling its grocery offerings "confusing."It is difficult to say with certainty whether the Target's commerce overall has been negatively affected by its policy on transgender people. Although company representatives have maintained it has not, shortly after Cornell made the announcement, USA Today reported a study that showed the percentage of people who would consider shopping there the next time they needed something dropped from 42 to 38 percent. But the retail industry as a whole is facing a dramatic shift in consumer behavior, and retailers have struggled to keep pace with it.

FMD_train_1482

Missing Child: Devon Ward

04/17/2013

My son Devon Ward never came home from school today. He skipped his last class after lunch, and nobody's heard from him since. Cell phone is going right to voice mail. He is 14, about 5 foot 7, and probably wearing a black jacket. If everyone shares this on their pages, i am sure we will find someone who saw him this afternoon /evening or know his current whereabouts... call 607-358-5055. According to Binghamton, New York, radio station WHWK: Lisa Davis of Horseheads is searching for her 14 year old son Devon Ward who she says may be on his way to Pennsylvania. According to Lisa, Devon skipped his last class after lunch at Horseheads High School [on April 17] and hasn't been heard from since. Lisa says her husband checked the local hospital and notified both village police and New York State Troopers of their son's disappearance. Devon is said to be about 5 foot 7 and most likely wearing a black jacket. When I asked Lisa whether she believed there were a chance that her son had decided to simply run away, she said her son isn't the type of kid to just run away, but that she was told he might be headed to Pennsylvania. I spoke the the Chemung County Sheriff's Office who confirmed that this is an active case. They referred me to Horseheads Police Department where I was told Devon's case is a State Police case. I spoke with Trooper Lewis at the State Police office who didn't divulge any information but confirmed that Devon has been reported missing and that State Troopers are on the case. If you've seen Devon Ward or know where he is, please contact the New York State Troopers at 607-739-8797. On the evening of 18 April 2013, Devon's mother indicated on her Facebook page that Devon had been located safe: Facebook We found Devon. He is safe and sound at the police barracks in Horseheads. Thank you to everyone who helped spread the word. We greatly appreciate all the help and support. We have such a wonderful community!! Please share the status, so that people know he's been found. Taylor, Traci. "14 Year Old Missing from Horseheads, May Be Headed to Pennsylvania." WHWK Radio 18 April 2013.

NEI

On the evening of 18 April 2013, Devon's mother indicated on her Facebook page that Devon had been located safe:

FMD_train_1381

Were the Koch Brothers the purchasers of NPR?

12/03/2014

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

False

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

FMD_train_1232

A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a Dying Veteran

03/20/2013

A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney From: Tomas Young I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, both physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care. I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters, and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured, and done in Iraq have led to suicide, and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the approximately 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief. I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation, and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice, but in our eyes, you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder, and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.

True

[Rest of article here.]Origins: Tomas Young is a disabled veteran who enlisted in the military after the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. in 2001 and was severely wounded in Iraq in 2004; he subsequently became an outspoken critic of the Iraq War and was featured in the 2007 documentary film Body of War:In a March 2013 interview with Chris Hedges, Young provided more detail about his decision to end his life:On 18 March 2013, in conjunction with the tenth anniversary of beginning of the Iraq War, Tomas Young submitted a letter (referenced above) that was published on the truthdig web site. Titled "The Last Letter" and subtitled "A Message to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney from a Dying Veteran," the letter criticized the former president and vice president for sending "hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage."

FMD_train_774

Did President Trump Tweet 'How Are Your 409Ks Doing'?

01/10/2020

On Jan. 9, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a tweet, written partially in all-capital letters, asking people how their "409K'S" are doing, and although he deleted the tweet and re-posted it without the "409K" reference, the errant tweet was captured by at least two archiving services.Trump then deleted that tweet and posted a new tweet, substituting in the correct reference, "401K." A 401(k) is a retirement-savings benefit offered to employees by some companies. Funds are generally automatically deducted from paychecks and deposited into an account that is tied to stocks. Therefore the performance of 401(k) accounts are linked to the highs and lows of the stock market. archiving services new tweet Many Americans, however, do not have access to this benefit, as it is dependent on their employer. Regardless of whether they have one, most Americans do not have enough money saved for retirement, according to economic data. do not most U.S. stocks have been experiencing a record bull market for roughly a decade, which Trump generally claims credit for, although it started under his predecessor, Barack Obama. record started Elkins, Kathleen."Only Half of Americans Have Access to a 401(k) Heres How to Save for Retirement If You Dont." CNBC.18 March 2019. Chang, Sue."Welcome To the Longest Bull Market in Wall Street History." CNBC.22 August 2018. Chang, Sue. "The Dows Tumultuous History, in One Chart." MarketWatch. 3 February 2018. Martin, Emmie."Heres How Many Americans Have Nothing Saved for Retirement." CNBC.28 June 2019.

True

On Jan. 9, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump posted a tweet, written partially in all-capital letters, asking people how their "409K'S" are doing, and although he deleted the tweet and re-posted it without the "409K" reference, the errant tweet was captured by at least two archiving services.Trump then deleted that tweet and posted a new tweet, substituting in the correct reference, "401K." A 401(k) is a retirement-savings benefit offered to employees by some companies. Funds are generally automatically deducted from paychecks and deposited into an account that is tied to stocks. Therefore the performance of 401(k) accounts are linked to the highs and lows of the stock market.Many Americans, however, do not have access to this benefit, as it is dependent on their employer. Regardless of whether they have one, most Americans do not have enough money saved for retirement, according to economic data.U.S. stocks have been experiencing a record bull market for roughly a decade, which Trump generally claims credit for, although it started under his predecessor, Barack Obama.

FMD_train_1182

Is ICE 'Citizens Academy' Training Civilians To Arrest 'Undocumented' Immigrants?

07/17/2020

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_1194

Did a Cheesecake Factory Customer Receive Misleading 'Tip Suggestions' on His Receipt?

09/27/2017

On 18 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Abreu posted what he presented as a photograph of a restaurant check receipt from his recent visit to a Cheesecake Factory outlet in Valencia, California, that appeared to offer some misleading and exaggerated tip amount suggestions: posted When the bill finally returned I noted it it was $33.76 total. Right above where you fill in the tip and total was the tipping guide which prefigures your percentage based on your total bill. I personally am a fan of this feature as I don't like figuring percentages on and odd amount so I normally just go with what they put for 20%. So I began to write in $14.71 as it stated was 20 percent of my bill. My wife then asked how much was the bill and I replied almost $50 with the tip. She then said that's pretty expensive for two iced teas and two apps. I looked at the bill again and saw $33.76 which was correct but then I realized that 20 percent of that should be $6.75 and not $14.71 (more than double) that was printed on my bill. The credit card receipt is authentic. Abreu (who goes by "Frank") brandished an identical-looking slip during an interview with Los Angeles television station KCAL, along with an itemized receipt showing the same total cost ($33.76 including sales tax) but accurate tip suggestions (20% of the bill as $6.75, for example). Thedate and server's name on that receipt were both the same as the credit card slip featured in Abreu's Facebook post. interview A spokesperson for the Cheesecake Factory told us that the discrepancy was caused by an error resulting from a staff member's mistakenly processing the Abreus' order along with someone else's, yielding a larger total that was then used as the basis for the tip suggestions presented in each check: The receipt does not accurately reflect the transaction. The suggested gratuity calculation resulted from inadvertently combining two unrelated parties checks. We deeply apologize for the mistake. It would appear that the staff member corrected the error in the itemized receipt, leaving accurate tip suggestions there, but processed the credit card payment as if it were part of the erroneous "split bill," creating the inaccurate tip suggestions there. (If the combined cost of the two bills were $73.55, for example, then $14.71 would have been an accurate suggested amount for a 20% tip.) The practice of presenting tip suggestions based a whole table's order, in each separate receipt after a bill is split, is controversial. The Cheesecake Factory is currently being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for allegedly presenting tip suggestions misleadingly based on percentages of a whole table's bill, in instances where diners split checks: sued The Cheesecake Factory ... [when a table] uses two or more credit or debit cards to pay for the charges, the combined bill is divided between the credit/debit cards and Defendant presents each diner/consumer with a separate sales draft for a portion of the bill (a split bill). On each of the sales drafts, Defendant includes suggested gratuity amounts to facilitate customers in calculating and leaving a gratuity for service. Defendant represents the suggested gratuity to be 15%, 18%, 20% or 22% of the check amount reflected on the sales draft, but, in reality, it calculates the suggested gratuity on the combined bill and the suggested gratuity amounts are actually 30%, 36%, 40%, or 44% of the amounts shown on the separate sales drafts. When customers use credit or debit cards to settle their dining bill, Defendant provides them with sales drafts that contain suggested gratuity amounts, and when Defendant divides the total bill between two or more credit/debit cards, the sales drafts contain suggested gratuity amounts which do not accurately represent the total of each sales draft. Plaintiff estimates that over 80% of restaurant charges are paid by credit or debit cards and that approximately 10% or more of those charges (which represents many thousands of consumers) are divided between two or more credit/debit cards and are affected by The Cheesecake Factorys wrongful suggested gratuity practices. The case has the potential to become a class action lawsuit. An initial status conference is scheduled for 18 October 2017. KCAL-TV [Los Angeles]. "'Borderline Theft': Tipping Suggestions on Man's Cheesecake Factory Receipt Don't Add Up." 18 September 2017. Kieler, Ashlee. "Cheesecake Factory Customers Say They Were Duped Into Leaving Big Tips." Consumerist. 11 August 2017. Goldman, Marcel. "Class Action Complaint Marcel Goldman vs the Cheesecake Factory Incorporated." Superior Court for the State of California, County of Los Angeles. 12 July 2017.

NEI

On 18 September 2017, Facebook user Mike Abreu posted what he presented as a photograph of a restaurant check receipt from his recent visit to a Cheesecake Factory outlet in Valencia, California, that appeared to offer some misleading and exaggerated tip amount suggestions:The credit card receipt is authentic. Abreu (who goes by "Frank") brandished an identical-looking slip during an interview with Los Angeles television station KCAL, along with an itemized receipt showing the same total cost ($33.76 including sales tax) but accurate tip suggestions (20% of the bill as $6.75, for example). Thedate and server's name on that receipt were both the same as the credit card slip featured in Abreu's Facebook post.The practice of presenting tip suggestions based a whole table's order, in each separate receipt after a bill is split, is controversial. The Cheesecake Factory is currently being sued in Los Angeles Superior Court for allegedly presenting tip suggestions misleadingly based on percentages of a whole table's bill, in instances where diners split checks:

FMD_train_1641

No, Walmart is not dismissing or disregarding the donations you make at the checkout.

06/29/2021

In late June 2021, social media users shared a meme misinforming viewers that Walmart and other large businesses were taking customers' point-of-sale charitable donations and writing them off on their taxes. Readers have been asking Snopes about this meme since at least August 2020. The meme addresses a phenomenon called "checkout charity," in which many large businesses ask customers to donate a small amount to a charitable cause upon checkout: according to What happens to the money you donate at the cash register? This is where you round up your bill to give to a charity designated by the retailer, and the donation amount appears on your receipt. The store serves only as a collection agent for your gift. Assuming the business is following the law, it will not include your donation as part of its business receipts, or income, nor will it claim the charitable gift as an expense. In other words, your gift has zero impact on the stores income taxes. Keep in mind that the store chooses the receiving charity, so make sure it is one you can support. As a customer, the donation will appear on your receipt and you can claim it as a charitable deduction when you file your income tax return. But you probably wont. A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations. according to The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it: reported "Checkout charity, as it's sometimes called, has become big business for nonprofits and retailers. Charities love it because it raises money from the masses at little cost. Companies love it because it makes them look caring and generous, even if it comes on the backs of customers."

False

A whopping nine out of ten customers don't write those donations off, even with a receipt, according to the Tax Policy Center, which estimates only 9% of households claim deductions for charitable donations.The Tampa Bay Times reported that the practice is gaining in popularity because both charities and businesses benefit from it:

FMD_train_799

Has Fox News stated that Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club was served a foreclosure notice by Deutsche Bank?

11/15/2023

On Nov. 15, 2023, a user on X with the handle @PatMaguire10 published a post (archived) claiming that Fox News had reported that former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida, had received a foreclosure notice from Deutsche Bank. We received reader mail asking if this was true. The post read, "BREAKING FOX NEWS: Deutsche Bank has filed a notice to foreclose on Mar A Lago. The Trump property is part of a larger estate lien that is $190 million delinquent. Court documents show a $3.4 billion loan that's in default. Trump hasn't responded to repeated attempts for comment. Developing story." However, a quick check of @PatMaguire10's X bio revealed that the account posts "parody" content. In other words, Fox News did not report on any such foreclosure notice, nor was there any public record of a foreclosure of Mar-a-Lago taking place or scheduled to happen in the future. For a little more background on the subject referenced, on the same day that the post was created, Trump's legal team reportedly asked for a mistrial to be declared in the civil fraud trial brought against him in New York. Weeks earlier, the same trial featured testimony from retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh. Haigh provided information to the court about the bank's decision to loan Trump roughly $125 million for the purchase of the Trump National Doral property in Miami in 2011, according to ABC News. As for Mar-a-Lago, the Miami Herald reported in August 2022 that Trump had received a loan from Chase Manhattan Bank, not Deutsche Bank, for his 1985 purchase of the property. Mar-a-Lago itself cost Trump $8 million, which he financed with an $8.5 million loan from Chase Manhattan Bank. The other parcel—oceanfront land next to the manor—cost $2 million. Trump was able to use $500,000 from the estate loan and a $1.5 million mortgage from the seller, Jack C. Massey, to cover the bill. For further reading, we previously published a report titled "Media Literacy: How Can You Tell if a Post Is Satire/Parody?"

False

On Nov. 15, 2023, a user on X with the handle @PatMaguire10 published a post (archived) that said Fox News had reported former U.S. President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Florida had received a foreclosure notice from Deutsche Bank. We received reader mail that asked if this was true.For a little more background on the subject that was referenced, on the same day that the post was created, Trump's legal team reportedly asked for a mistrial to be declared in the civil fraud trial brought against him in New York.Weeks earlier, the same trial featured testimony from retired Deutsche Bank executive Nicholas Haigh. Haigh provided information to the court about the bank's decision to loan Trump roughly $125 million for the purchase of the Trump National Doral property in Miami in 2011, according to ABC News.As for Mar-a-Lago, Miami Herald reported in August 2022 that Trump had received a loan from Chase Manhattan Bank not Deutsche Bank for his 1985 purchase of the property:For further reading, we previously published a report titled, "Media Literacy: How Can You Tell if a Post Is Satire/Parody?"

FMD_train_488

Student loan debt has risen by 170 percent since 2006 and currently surpasses $1.5 trillion, positioning it as the second highest debt category after mortgages and exceeding credit card debt.

03/21/2019

In her book, The Truths We Hold, California Sen. Kamala Harris asks, "How can you dream when you are drowning in student loan debt?" in a section on the rising cost of living in America. On the campaign trail, the Democratic presidential hopeful has called student loan debt one of the biggest challenges facing our country and our students. In the Senate, she helped reintroduce the Debt-Free College Act, a bill she says will help reverse the growing student debt crisis. Specifically, it would provide states with incentives through matching grants to increase investments in public higher education. The senator then made this eye-popping claim about how fast student loan debt has grown in a news release on March 6 announcing her support for the bill: "College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.5 trillion, which is second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt." She tweeted a similar claim a few days later. But is student loan debt really growing that fast? And is it really second only to mortgage debt? We decided to crunch Harris's numbers in this fact check. To support the statement, a spokesman for Harris cited a Federal Reserve table showing the nation's cumulative student loan debt for each year from 2006 through 2018. He also cited articles from The Washington Post and MarketWatch. The Federal Reserve table shows that student loan debt at the end of 2006 was $521 billion. By the end of 2018, the most recent period available, it had grown to $1.57 trillion, which matches Harris's claim that it now exceeds $1.5 trillion. However, after calculating the numbers, we found an increase of 201 percent, an even faster rate than the 170 percent Harris referenced. "I'd say that her statement is mostly correct," said Mark Kantrowitz, a national financial aid expert. "The one slight error: She actually underestimates the growth of student loan debt outstanding." Kantrowitz is the publisher and vice president of research for SavingforCollege.com, a guide to college savings plans. "The only way I get to 170 percent," he added, "is if I compare the current debt outstanding to 2007 instead of 2006. That works out to be 170 percent." Hans Johnson, director of the Public Policy Institute of California's Higher Education Center, also reviewed the data and found a 200 percent increase based on the most current Federal Reserve figures. Why is college debt growing so fast? More students going to college accounts for some of the growth of student loan debt, but only a small portion, Kantrowitz said. In 2006, there were 15.2 million college students. A decade later, that number had increased by 11 percent to 16.9 million, he said, citing figures from the National Center for Education Statistics. Kantrowitz added that another factor is that federal grants have slowed as tuition has gone up. States often cut tuition assistance at the first signs of a financial crisis. The average student loan debt was nearly $30,000 for students graduating with a bachelor's degree in 2018, Kantrowitz said. That is up from nearly $21,000 in 2006. We found this part of Harris's statement to be accurate. In 2014, PolitiFact Virginia reported that student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, citing data from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. At the end of 2018, the nation's overall credit card debt was $870 billion, and mortgage balances stood at $9.1 trillion, according to the data. Our rating: Sen. Kamala Harris said, "College debt has increased 170 percent since 2006 and now exceeds $1.5 trillion, which is second only to mortgage debt and surpasses even credit card debt." She actually understated how fast student loan debt is growing. The most recent Federal Reserve figures show it has increased by 201 percent since 2006. Harris was right about college debt topping $1.5 trillion and being second only to mortgage debt. We rate her overall statement Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE: The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

True

On thecampaign trail, the Democratic presidential hopeful has called student loan debt one of the biggest challenges facing our country and our students.In the Senate, she helped re-introduce theDebt-Free College Act, a bill she says will help reverse the growing student debt crisis. Specifically, it would provide states incentives through matching grants to increase investments in public higher education.The senator then made this eye-popping claim about how fast student loan debt has grown in anews releaseon March 6 announcing her support for the bill:Shetweeteda similar claim a few days later.To support the statement, a spokesman for Harris cited a Federal Reservetableshowing the nations cumulative student loan debt for each year from 2006 through 2018. He also cited articles fromThe Washington PostandMarketWatch.SOURCE: Federal Reserve student loandata.We found this part of Harris statement is accurate. In 2014, PolitiFact Virginiareportedthat student debt began to outpace credit card debt in the second quarter of 2010, citingdatafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.At the end of 2018, the nations overall credit card debt was $870 billion and mortgage balances stood at $9.1 trillion, according to thedata.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_332

DoD Suspension of Brass Cartridge Casing Sales

04/19/2009

Claim: The Department of Defense has cut off sales of spent cartridge cases to U.S. ammunition manufacturers. OF AND OUTDATED INFORMATION Example: [Collected via e-mail, March 2009] Georgia Arms is the 5th largest retailer of .223 Ammo in America. (they sell 9 mm, .45, etc ammo) They normally buy spent brass from the US Dept of Defense - 'one time used' shell casings by our Military - from training on Military bases, etc. They buy the brass and then re-load for resale to Law Enforcement, Gun Shops, Gun Clubs, Wal-Mart, and etc. They normally buy 30,000 lbs of spent brass at a time. This week the DoD wrote a letter to the owner of Georgia Arms and said that from now on the DoD will be destroying the brass - shredding it. It is no longer available to the Ammo makers - unless they just buy it in a scrap shredded condition (which they have No use for). The shredded brass is NOW going to be sold by the DoD to China as scrap metal.... after the DoD pays for it to be shredded. The DoD is selling the brass to China for less money than Ammo manufacturers have been paying... plus the DoD has to pay to have the brass shredded and do all the accounting paperwork. That sure helps the US economy now, doesn't it? Sell cheaper to China - and do not sell shells at all to a proven US business. Any agenda working here???? Obama going after our ammunition!!!!! The Georgia Arms owner even related a story that one of his competitors had already purchased a load of brass last week - and the DoD contacted him this week and said they were sending someone over to make sure it was destroyed. Shell Casings he had already bought! THE BRASS HAS NO VALUE TO THE AMMO MAKER IF IT IS DESTROYED/SHREDDED/MELTED. THE AMMO MANUFACTURER ONLY USES THE EMPTY BRASS SHELLS TO RELOAD DIFFERENT CALIBERS - MAINLY .223 BULLETS. Georgia Arms owner says that he will have to lay off at least Half of his 60 workers, within 2 - 3 months if the DoD no longer sells their spent brass to him. He has 2 - 3 months inventory of shells to use. By summer - he's out. If he has to buy new manufactured brass shells, then the cost of ammunitioin to the buyer will double and triple. Origins: The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), which is part of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which in turn is part of the Department of Defense (DoD), is the service "responsible for the disposition of excess and surplus DoD property" and is tasked with "protecting national security by ensuring property is properly identified for reutilization and disposition and not released for public sale when to do so would jeopardize national security." DRMS In March 2009, while reviewing a policy change issued by the DoD the previous year, the DLA halted or reclassified the sale of a broad category of items, a category which included spent cartridge cases. This event caused consternation among manufacturers and purchasers of ammunition because it cut off some ammunition manufacturers from their largest supply of brass casings, as U.S. senators Max Baucas and Jon Tester noted in a letter on the subject to the DLA: "This reclassification has an impact on small businesses who sell reloaded ammunition utilizing these fired casings, and upon individual gun owners who purchase spent military brass at considerable cost savings for their personal use." letter The issue was quickly resolved, however: a week later the DLA issued a press release announcing that upon completion of their review, they had determined that cartridge cases "could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale": press release Small arms cartridge cases are identified as a sensitive Munitions List item and were held pending review of the policy relating to the category of items in which cartridge cases were included. Upon review, the Defense Logistics Agency has determined the cartridge cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale. The DRMS sales contractor has been notified of this decision and has begun the process of reoffering the cases that have been held pending completion of the policy review. The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) also issued a statement on 18 March 2009 which noted (in part): statement [T]he Department of Defense informed NRA-ILA that fired military small arms cartridge cases are once again eligible for sale, following a temporary suspension in such sales instituted last week. NRA-ILA began discussions with DoD shortly after the suspension took effect, and we were assured from the beginning that efforts were underway to resolve the issue favorably. In announcing that the suspension has been lifted, DoD also made clear that no cartridge cases that, in the absence of the suspension, would have been sold for reloading purposes were destroyed while the suspension was in effect. Such cases were instead protected by DoD during the suspension, and are again eligible for sale. With ammunition currently in short supply, that was welcome news, to be sure. DLA also put to rest various theories and rumors that were circulated on the internet concerning the reason for the suspension. As DLA explained to Senators Baucus and Tester, and to NRA-ILA, DoD officials responsible for the demilitarization of military property temporarily halted the release of the cartridge cases last week pending review of a policy change issued last year by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, which, in the interest of national security, halted the sale of items within a broad category of government property including, but not limited to, surplus small arms cartridge cases. To make cartridge cases eligible for sale once again, DoD demilitarization officials verified that the cases could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for use within the United States, and then executed the recategorization. Whereas during the brief suspension, fired cartridge cases would have been releaseable only if the purchaser crushed or smelted them, now the cases may be sold as before, intact and reloadable. Last updated: 19 April 2009 Gonsalves, Chris. "Feds Lift Rule That Threatened Ammo Shortages." Newsmax. 19 March 2009. Johnson, Tonya. "Small Arms Cartridge Case Policy Revised." Defense Logistics Agency 20 March 2009.

False

Origins: The Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service (DRMS), which is part of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), which in turn is part of the Department of Defense (DoD), is the service "responsible for the disposition of excess and surplus DoD property" and is tasked with "protecting national security by ensuring property is properly identified for reutilization and disposition and not released for public sale when to do so would jeopardize national security."category which included spent cartridge cases. This event caused consternation among manufacturers and purchasers of ammunition because it cut off some ammunition manufacturers from their largest supply of brass casings, as U.S. senators Max Baucas and Jon Tester noted in a letter on the subject to the DLA: "This reclassification has an impact on small businesses who sell reloaded ammunition utilizing these fired casings, and upon individual gun owners who purchase spent military brass at considerable cost savings for their personal use."The issue was quickly resolved, however: a week later the DLA issued a press release announcing that upon completion of their review, they had determined that cartridge cases "could be appropriately placed in a category of government property allowing for their release for sale":The National Rifle Association Institute for Legislative Action (NRA-ILA) also issued a statement on 18 March 2009 which noted (in part):

FMD_train_1549

Did Obama Apologize for Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan?

05/29/2016

On 27 May 2016, President Obama became the first sitting president to visit Hiroshima, Japan, since the end of World War II. While some media outlets portrayed the historic visit as another stop on Obama's "apology tour," the president did not actually apologize. Still, social media users were outraged at the President's supposed apology. On 26 May 2016, the New York Post published an article criticizing the president for his "shameful" apology tour. While the author assumed that Obama would apologize (despite the White House stating that an apology would not be forthcoming), the article was published a day before Obama's speech and therefore did not serve as evidence. An American president's highest moral, constitutional, and political duty is to protect his fellow citizens from foreign threats. Presidents should adhere to our values and the Constitution and not treat America's enemies as morally equivalent to us. If they do, they need not apologize to anyone. The White House stated that President Obama wouldn't apologize during his visit to Hiroshima. But who believes his press representatives? The president did express regret while he was in Japan, but it wasn't for the atomic bomb. On 25 May 2016, the President offered his "deepest regrets" for the death of a Japanese woman who reportedly had been murdered by a former U.S. Marine. "The U.S. will continue to cooperate fully" and will ensure "justice is done under the Japanese legal system," Obama said. While critics of President Obama preemptively condemned him for apologizing for the United States' 1945 actions (which collectively killed more than 100,000 people), and while the President did express regret for an unrelated incident, he did not actually offer an apology during his speech. Obama did offer condolences for the loss of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but nowhere in the full text of his remarks did he offer an apology. Seventy-one years ago, on a bright, cloudless morning, death fell from the sky, and the world was changed. A flash of light and a wall of fire destroyed a city and demonstrated that mankind possessed the means to destroy itself. Why do we come to this place, to Hiroshima? We come to ponder a terrible force unleashed in a not-so-distant past. We come to mourn the dead, including over 100,000 Japanese men, women, and children, thousands of Koreans, and a dozen Americans held prisoner. Their souls speak to us. They ask us to look inward, to take stock of who we are and what we might become.

False

On 27 May 2016, President Obama became the first sitting president to visit Hiroshima, Japan since the end of World War II. While some media outlets painted the historic visit as another stop on Obama's "apology tour," the president did not actually apologize.On 26 May 2016, the New York Post published an article criticizing the president for his "shameful" apology tour. While the author assumed that Obama would apologize (despite the White House saying that an apology would not be forthcoming), the article came out a day before Obama's speech and therefore did not serve as evidence:The president did make an apology while he was in Japan, but it wasn't for the atomic bomb. On 25 May 2016, the President offered his "deepest regrets" for the death of a Japanese woman who reportedly had been murdered by a former U.S. Marine:While critics of President Obama preemptively condemned him for apologizing for the United States' 1945 actions (which collectively killed more than 100,000 people), and while the President did apologize for an unrelated incident, he did not actually offer an apology during his speech. Obama did offer condolences for the loss of those who died at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but nowhere in the full text of his remarks did he offer an apology:

FMD_train_415

On Lee Fishers watch, almost nine out of 10 jobs that Ohio lost were lost to other states, not to other countries.

09/27/2010

Rob Portman makes a unique bogeyman for his opponent : Hes a Republican who not only supported foreign trade policies, which his foes blame for Ohio job losses, but he also personally advised a president on expanding trade. He personifies the policy.Yet Portman, a Republican running for U.S. Senate, has a uniquely good comeback.He says that while many companies have survived thanks to the export opportunities of foreign trade, Ohio lost lots of other jobs to other states on the watch of his opponent, Lee Fisher -- the irony being that Fisher, a Democrat and Ohios lieutenant governor, was also Ohios development director, in charge of bringing new jobs to the state.Its a blame game with resumes perfectly tailored for the respective attacks. But whos more to blame for Ohios job losses? The guy who promoted trade with China and Mexico and saw jobs cross those borders? Or the guy who as Ohio development director saw too much development cross state borders, not international ones? Portman, appearing with Fisher before The Plain Dealer editorial board on Sept. 14, said that if you want to compare the validity of these opposing claims, data from the state backs up his: more jobs went to other states than went abroad.It may surprise you to learn that when you look at the states own data in terms of job loss, that almost nine out of 10 jobs we have lost in the last three and a half years during the Strickland-Fisher administration have gone to other states, not to other countries, Portman said, referring to Fisher and Gov. Ted Strickland. Think about that. So companies have left Cleveland to go to Indiana. Companies have left Cleveland to go across the border to Michigan. And yet its easy in a campaign to fan the flames of protectionism and to claim that the jobs went to Mexico or Canada or, more likely, China.We asked about that data, went to thestates websiteto see for ourselves, and laid it out in an Excel file. What we saw, however, were alternate versions of the same reality -- one that supports Portman and yet simultaneously presents as many holes as aged Emmental cheese.So before we put this to the Truth-O-Meter, let us show you the numbers, starting with Portmans view of them.The states own data comes from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, or ODJFS. In concert with the U.S. Department of Labor, ODJFS publishes quarterly reports of Mass Layoff Events, based on surveys of companies with 50 or more initial unemployment claims filed within a five-week period. The surveys, conducted by telephone, ask why the layoffs occurred and whether they were associated with jobs being moved from one place to another. If so, the survey asks where these jobs went: Somewhere else in Ohio? Some other state? Some other country?Reviewing these quarterly reports, we found missing numbers and an error the state had made. After we discussed this with ODJFS, the agency went back and updated one quarterly set of numbers. That changed the outcome of the tally, but only slightly. Because Portman relied on the old data, we will still use the old data to evaluate his claim.From January 2007 through March of 2010, 842 jobs were lost in Ohio because companies moved operations overseas, the old reports showed. Thats a small number compared with the 5,215 jobs lost in Ohio because companies moved their operations to other states, as the state data showed.Put another way, it means that of the jobs that left Ohio, only 13.9 percent went overseas -- and 86 percent went to other states. Now consider Portmans words: The states own data shows that almost nine out of ten jobs we have lost in the last three and a half years during the Strickland-Fisher administration have gone to other states, not to other countries.Eighty-six percent is close enough to nine out of ten. So Portman is right -- yes?Well, yes -- except for the caveats. Lets start with those from the state. ODJFS quarterly reports note that employers with fewer than 50 workers are not part of the surveys, so these numbers do not include small companies. That exclusion partly explains why the total number of lost jobs counted in these Ohio quarterly reports -- 264,016 since January 2007, including the vast majority that had little to do with the movement of work -- is lower than youll see in other reports of job losses.Then theres the U.S. Department of Labor, whose Bureau of Labor Statistics sets the survey standards and points out that movement of work is defined as work that will be performed by a company or for a company in a new location. Movement is easy to report when a company shutters one plant and reopens another, whether in Juarez, Mexico, or Kokomo, Ind. The definition also applies if a company signs a contract to have its widgets manufactured in Shanghai, China. These are hypothetical examples, because the state reports do not give the exact place of relocation. But if a large company with a big supply chain starts using a widget supplier in Mexico and stops buying from a supplier in Ohio, and that Ohio supplier loses so much revenue that it shuts down, those lost jobs are not counted in the movement of work column. Those jobs, then, do not wind up in Portmans comparison.Thats the biggest problem. We asked Policy Matters Ohio, a think tank, for itslatest report on trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, a federal assistance program for workers displaced because of foreign trade. In 2009, 20,677 Ohio workers were deemed potentially eligible for the program, and 9,455 more were in 2008, according to TAA certification reports reviewed by Policy Matters. That suggests that job losses from trade were massively higher than those attributable to companies moving out of state.But some of those workers eligible for TAA wound up keeping their jobs or getting rehired, such as when General Motors Lordstown plant began rehiring. Others found work elsewhere; a precise number does not exist, which presents a problem for all of these comparisons. Everyone is talking about fruit, but theyre often comparing apples with persimmons.PolitiFact Ohio has previously examined claims by Strickland and Fisher that trade deals cost specific numbers of job losses in Ohio. We have found trend lines that appear believable, but the reports and statistics the officials cite rely on extrapolations or suppositions. Someday the comparative data may exist; until then, each side in this debate simply argues a point that sounds as if it could be true -- and certainly rings true to those affected -- but that lacks the accuracy that advocates suggest when they trot out their numbers.So we return to Portmans claim. Portmans spokeswoman, Jessica Towhey, says the candidate made clear that he was referring solely to state data and the movement of jobs out of state, compared with those moved out of the country, when he said that nine out of 10 jobs lost in Ohio went to other states, not other countries. In such a narrow construct, Portmans statement might be considered accurate but there is more to this picture. Here are the numbers as updated: From Jan. 1, 2007, through March 31, 2010, Ohio lost 4,820 jobs due to company moves out of state (not the 5,215 in the reports that existed when Portman viewed them). It lost 1,125 more when companies closed operations in one part of the state but relocated elsewhere in Ohio. And it lost 842 jobs when companies moved operations abroad.This is out of 264,016 jobs counted as lost altogether in this particular series of reports -- reports that ODJFS spokesman Ben Johnson say capture just a subset of all layoffs.When a statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, the Truth-O-Meter says it is mostly true. Thats how we find Portmans claim: accurate in a narrow context but needing clarification, and so, Mostly True.

True

Portman, appearing with Fisher before The Plain Dealer editorial board on Sept. 14, said that if you want to compare the validity of these opposing claims, data from the state backs up his: more jobs went to other states than went abroad.It may surprise you to learn that when you look at the states own data in terms of job loss, that almost nine out of 10 jobs we have lost in the last three and a half years during the Strickland-Fisher administration have gone to other states, not to other countries, Portman said, referring to Fisher and Gov. Ted Strickland. Think about that. So companies have left Cleveland to go to Indiana. Companies have left Cleveland to go across the border to Michigan. And yet its easy in a campaign to fan the flames of protectionism and to claim that the jobs went to Mexico or Canada or, more likely, China.We asked about that data, went to thestates websiteto see for ourselves, and laid it out in an Excel file. What we saw, however, were alternate versions of the same reality -- one that supports Portman and yet simultaneously presents as many holes as aged Emmental cheese.So before we put this to the Truth-O-Meter, let us show you the numbers, starting with Portmans view of them.The states own data comes from the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, or ODJFS. In concert with the U.S. Department of Labor, ODJFS publishes quarterly reports of Mass Layoff Events, based on surveys of companies with 50 or more initial unemployment claims filed within a five-week period. The surveys, conducted by telephone, ask why the layoffs occurred and whether they were associated with jobs being moved from one place to another. If so, the survey asks where these jobs went: Somewhere else in Ohio? Some other state? Some other country?Reviewing these quarterly reports, we found missing numbers and an error the state had made. After we discussed this with ODJFS, the agency went back and updated one quarterly set of numbers. That changed the outcome of the tally, but only slightly. Because Portman relied on the old data, we will still use the old data to evaluate his claim.From January 2007 through March of 2010, 842 jobs were lost in Ohio because companies moved operations overseas, the old reports showed. Thats a small number compared with the 5,215 jobs lost in Ohio because companies moved their operations to other states, as the state data showed.Put another way, it means that of the jobs that left Ohio, only 13.9 percent went overseas -- and 86 percent went to other states. Now consider Portmans words: The states own data shows that almost nine out of ten jobs we have lost in the last three and a half years during the Strickland-Fisher administration have gone to other states, not to other countries.Eighty-six percent is close enough to nine out of ten. So Portman is right -- yes?Well, yes -- except for the caveats. Lets start with those from the state. ODJFS quarterly reports note that employers with fewer than 50 workers are not part of the surveys, so these numbers do not include small companies. That exclusion partly explains why the total number of lost jobs counted in these Ohio quarterly reports -- 264,016 since January 2007, including the vast majority that had little to do with the movement of work -- is lower than youll see in other reports of job losses.Then theres the U.S. Department of Labor, whose Bureau of Labor Statistics sets the survey standards and points out that movement of work is defined as work that will be performed by a company or for a company in a new location. Movement is easy to report when a company shutters one plant and reopens another, whether in Juarez, Mexico, or Kokomo, Ind. The definition also applies if a company signs a contract to have its widgets manufactured in Shanghai, China. These are hypothetical examples, because the state reports do not give the exact place of relocation.We asked Policy Matters Ohio, a think tank, for itslatest report on trade adjustment assistance, or TAA, a federal assistance program for workers displaced because of foreign trade. In 2009, 20,677 Ohio workers were deemed potentially eligible for the program, and 9,455 more were in 2008, according to TAA certification reports reviewed by Policy Matters. That suggests that job losses from trade were massively higher than those attributable to companies moving out of state.But some of those workers eligible for TAA wound up keeping their jobs or getting rehired, such as when General Motors Lordstown plant began rehiring. Others found work elsewhere; a precise number does not exist, which presents a problem for all of these comparisons. Everyone is talking about fruit, but theyre often comparing apples with persimmons.PolitiFact Ohio has previously examined claims by Strickland and Fisher that trade deals cost specific numbers of job losses in Ohio. We have found trend lines that appear believable, but the reports and statistics the officials cite rely on extrapolations or suppositions. Someday the comparative data may exist; until then, each side in this debate simply argues a point that sounds as if it could be true -- and certainly rings true to those affected -- but that lacks the accuracy that advocates suggest when they trot out their numbers.So we return to Portmans claim. Portmans spokeswoman, Jessica Towhey, says the candidate made clear that he was referring solely to state data and the movement of jobs out of state, compared with those moved out of the country, when he said that nine out of 10 jobs lost in Ohio went to other states, not other countries. In such a narrow construct, Portmans statement might be considered accurate but there is more to this picture. Here are the numbers as updated: From Jan. 1, 2007, through March 31, 2010, Ohio lost 4,820 jobs due to company moves out of state (not the 5,215 in the reports that existed when Portman viewed them). It lost 1,125 more when companies closed operations in one part of the state but relocated elsewhere in Ohio. And it lost 842 jobs when companies moved operations abroad.This is out of 264,016 jobs counted as lost altogether in this particular series of reports -- reports that ODJFS spokesman Ben Johnson say capture just a subset of all layoffs.When a statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, the Truth-O-Meter says it is mostly true. Thats how we find Portmans claim: accurate in a narrow context but needing clarification, and so, Mostly True.

FMD_train_1383

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

06/10/2014

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

True

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

FMD_train_396

Fraudulent $75 Coupon Scheme involving Meijer

08/24/2015

In August 2015, a survey scam promising customers $100 off "Back to School" coupons for the Meijer hypermarket chain began circulating online. The $100 Meijer coupon scam was very similar to other schemes aimed at defrauding the customers of Target, Publix, Kroger, and Home Depot, all of which redirect users to a website where they are asked to like, share, and/or comment on the coupons, ensuring that the scams spread across social media. While each of these scams features slight variations, they typically redirect users to survey sites where they are asked to provide personal information such as email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, and credit card numbers. The Better Business Bureau offers these three tips to identify scams on Facebook: Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos, and headers of an established organization. Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions. On 24 August 2015, Meijer confirmed that this $100 coupon was a scam.

False

The $100 Meijer coupon scam was very similar to other schemes aimed at defrauding the customers of Target, Publix, Kroger, and Home Depot, all of which redirect users to a web site where they are asked to like, share, and/or comment on the coupons, ensuring that the scams get passed around social media:The Better Business Bureau offers these three tips to identify scams on Facebook:On 24 August 2015, Meijer confirmed that this $100 coupon was a scam:

FMD_train_935

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

07/03/2019

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

True

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

FMD_train_740

Our businesses have created jobs every single month since (Obamacare) became law.

01/12/2016

President Barack Obama touted the success of Obamacare during his final State of the Union address. He said the Affordable Care Act has led to nearly 18 million more people gaining health insurance and has helped to slow health care cost inflation. He added that the law didnt destroy the job market,despite pessimistic predictionsfrom critics. Our businesses have created jobs every single month since it became law, Obama said on Capitol Hill on Jan. 12, 2016. We hadnt heard that particular Obamacare talking point before, so we decided to take a look. Because Obama referred specifically to our businesses, we looked atprivate-sector employment datafrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics starting in March 2010, when Obama signed theAffordable Care Act. Of the 70 months since, Obama is correct that every single one has seen positive job growth. Thats a record for uninterrupted job growth, according to our friends at theWashington PostFact Checker. This graph from BLS shows monthly change in private-sector job growth (in thousands) since the start of 2010: From early 2010 on, the data is above the zero line, showing positive job growth. The fact that the country has gained jobs despite the health care law also might not assuage critics argument that job growth, and other aspects of the economy, would have been stronger absent the law. For example, in aJanuary 2015 fact-check, we found that the law might have caused many thousands of employees to have their hours cut from full-time to part-time. But independent studies havent backed up claims that the law would end up reducing employment. In 2011, we rated a claim from former Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., that Obamacare is job killingFalse. Former Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in 2014 that Obamacare is expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs. We rated that claimMostly False. Our ruling Obama said, Our businesses have created jobs every single month since (Obamacare) became law. The private sector has seen job growth every single month since Obama signed the Affordable Care Act in March 2010. Theres room for argument over what the growth would have looked like absent the health care law, but Obamas statistic is on target. We rate this claim True.

True

He said the Affordable Care Act has led to nearly 18 million more people gaining health insurance and has helped to slow health care cost inflation. He added that the law didnt destroy the job market,despite pessimistic predictionsfrom critics.Because Obama referred specifically to our businesses, we looked atprivate-sector employment datafrom the Bureau of Labor Statistics starting in March 2010, when Obama signed theAffordable Care Act.Of the 70 months since, Obama is correct that every single one has seen positive job growth. Thats a record for uninterrupted job growth, according to our friends at theWashington PostFact Checker.For example, in aJanuary 2015 fact-check, we found that the law might have caused many thousands of employees to have their hours cut from full-time to part-time.But independent studies havent backed up claims that the law would end up reducing employment. In 2011, we rated a claim from former Rep. Eric Cantor, R-Va., that Obamacare is job killingFalse.Former Rep. John Boehner, R-Ohio, said in 2014 that Obamacare is expected to destroy 2.3 million jobs. We rated that claimMostly False.

FMD_train_1769

Mayor Barrett saved Milwaukee $25 million, thanks to Gov. Walkers reforms.

01/15/2012

Those billboards around Milwaukee featuring Mayor Tom Barretts mug and a claim he saved Milwaukee $25 million are clever if you slow down to read the punch line.If you can do it without driving your car into an embankment, youll see theyare sponsored by the conservative Wisconsin Club for Growth and give credit to Barretts once -- and possibly future -- gubernatorial rival, Scott Walker, for making the savings possible.Barrett, the signs smaller print says, got the savings thanks to Gov. Scott Walkers reforms.The billboards hit on a theme voters undoubtedly will hear over and over from Republicans if Barrett takes on Walker in a possible recall election in 2012.The billboards refer to Walkers controversial budget legislation that took health care and pensions out of collective bargaining for most public employees.That allowed local governments and schools to impose cost-sharing for those benefits instead of negotiating with labor leaders.Barretts campaign, reacting tothead, denounced it as completely off base,in a statement toWTMJ4that said: The only thing accurate about that billboard is the picture of Tom Barrett.Whats the truth?Club for Growth didnt respond, but the Journal Sentinel reported in August that the city of Milwaukee will indeed save $25 million in 2012 just on health care costs, in large part by asking employees to pay more.In fact, Barretts budget document said revisions to the citys health insurance -- the ones made easier by Walkers changes -- would help drive overall health care costs down for the first time in more than 20 years.We contacted the same Milwaukee budget official quoted in August 2011, and he told us the city still expects a $25 million drop in health costs.Case closed?The official, city economist Dennis Yaccarino, says the $25 million actually overstates savings related to the Walker budget alone. He said city officials didnt make that clear in early August when a Journal Sentinel reporter first got the number from the city and published the $25 million figure in the context of Walkers changes. Thatstoryran Aug. 8, 2011.The newspaper followed upAugust 21, 2011, quoting city officials saying $6 million of that savings number was from the citys own decision to switch from an insured HMO to a self-funded approach due to projected cost savings. The $6 million switch is noted that way in Barretts budget.The move, we should note, was negotiated with the citys largest union two years ago but was not put in place until now for reasons unrelated to the state budget, according to Yaccarino and Richard Abelson, executive director of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, which represents general city employees.Yaccarino said the city calculated in 2011 that it was paying a profit to its carrier and could keep the money for itself by going self insured. That scenario had not existed until 2011, hence the delay, he said.So that leaves $19 million of savings for Milwaukee from Walkers original budget plan and the amended one he signed, right?Not exactly.Remember, the $25 million figure is just on the health care costs side fo the equation. What about public employees paying more in pension costs? Thats the second part of Walkers limits on collective bargaining over benefits. Milwaukee didnt put them in place due to questions about the legality of the state changes as they apply to Milwaukee. So thats a 0.Finally, city official note Walkers overall budget cut municipal aid, leaving the net savings to the city much reduced from $19 million.But the billboard refers to Walkers reforms, which is the changes tied to the collective bargaining issue. It is making a narrower claim, on how much was saved from the reforms, not how the city fared overall.Our conclusionBillboards say Walkers reforms allowed Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to save $25 million for the city.The city is that much ahead, but a portion was Barretts doing before Walkers budget was enacted.We rate the claim Mostly True.

True

Those billboards around Milwaukee featuring Mayor Tom Barretts mug and a claim he saved Milwaukee $25 million are clever if you slow down to read the punch line.If you can do it without driving your car into an embankment, youll see theyare sponsored by the conservative Wisconsin Club for Growth and give credit to Barretts once -- and possibly future -- gubernatorial rival, Scott Walker, for making the savings possible.Barrett, the signs smaller print says, got the savings thanks to Gov. Scott Walkers reforms.The billboards hit on a theme voters undoubtedly will hear over and over from Republicans if Barrett takes on Walker in a possible recall election in 2012.The billboards refer to Walkers controversial budget legislation that took health care and pensions out of collective bargaining for most public employees.That allowed local governments and schools to impose cost-sharing for those benefits instead of negotiating with labor leaders.Barretts campaign, reacting tothead, denounced it as completely off base,in a statement toWTMJ4that said: The only thing accurate about that billboard is the picture of Tom Barrett.Whats the truth?Club for Growth didnt respond, but the Journal Sentinel reported in August that the city of Milwaukee will indeed save $25 million in 2012 just on health care costs, in large part by asking employees to pay more.In fact, Barretts budget document said revisions to the citys health insurance -- the ones made easier by Walkers changes -- would help drive overall health care costs down for the first time in more than 20 years.We contacted the same Milwaukee budget official quoted in August 2011, and he told us the city still expects a $25 million drop in health costs.Case closed?The official, city economist Dennis Yaccarino, says the $25 million actually overstates savings related to the Walker budget alone. He said city officials didnt make that clear in early August when a Journal Sentinel reporter first got the number from the city and published the $25 million figure in the context of Walkers changes. Thatstoryran Aug. 8, 2011.The newspaper followed upAugust 21, 2011, quoting city officials saying $6 million of that savings number was from the citys own decision to switch from an insured HMO to a self-funded approach due to projected cost savings. The $6 million switch is noted that way in Barretts budget.The move, we should note, was negotiated with the citys largest union two years ago but was not put in place until now for reasons unrelated to the state budget, according to Yaccarino and Richard Abelson, executive director of the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees, which represents general city employees.Yaccarino said the city calculated in 2011 that it was paying a profit to its carrier and could keep the money for itself by going self insured. That scenario had not existed until 2011, hence the delay, he said.So that leaves $19 million of savings for Milwaukee from Walkers original budget plan and the amended one he signed, right?Not exactly.Remember, the $25 million figure is just on the health care costs side fo the equation. What about public employees paying more in pension costs? Thats the second part of Walkers limits on collective bargaining over benefits. Milwaukee didnt put them in place due to questions about the legality of the state changes as they apply to Milwaukee. So thats a 0.Finally, city official note Walkers overall budget cut municipal aid, leaving the net savings to the city much reduced from $19 million.But the billboard refers to Walkers reforms, which is the changes tied to the collective bargaining issue. It is making a narrower claim, on how much was saved from the reforms, not how the city fared overall.Our conclusionBillboards say Walkers reforms allowed Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett to save $25 million for the city.The city is that much ahead, but a portion was Barretts doing before Walkers budget was enacted.We rate the claim Mostly True.

FMD_train_526

Will Trump's Name Appear on COVID-19 Stimulus Checks?

04/15/2020

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting for promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks—a decision that could potentially delay their arrival by several days—many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure. Trump's name is indeed being added to the COVID-19 stimulus checks, otherwise known as Economic Impact Payments. As of this writing, however, officials at the U.S. Treasury Department insist this will not result in any delays. The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement." The Treasury Department has ordered President

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. In April 2020, millions of Americans who lost income due to circumstances related to the COVID-19 pandemic were waiting on promised relief payments from the United States government. So when news broke that U.S. President Donald Trump was making the "unprecedented" move of having his name added to these stimulus checks, a decision that could potentially delay the arrival of these checks by several days, many citizens took to social media to voice their displeasure, as in the example below:The Washington Post first reported on Trump's decision on April 14, 2020. According to the news outlet, Trump's name is expected to appear in the memo line of the check, not as the payment's official signatory, and that this will be the "first time that a president's name appears on an IRS disbursement":While Trump's name will appear on these stimulus checks, we can't predict whether these payments will be delayed or go out on time. A Treasury Department official said in a statement that "absolutely no delay whatsoever" would occur: An IRS official told Fox News that the number of people who will receive paper checks was subject to a "number of variables, including how much info the IRS obtains through the Non-Filers Enter Payment Info web portal and the Get My Payment portal launching [April 15] at IRS.gov.These Economic Impact Payments were included in the $2.2 trillion stimulus package that Trump signed in late March 2020. According to the IRS, direct-deposit payments had already started going out as of the second week in April. Those waiting on a paper check, however, may not see their payments for several weeks. (If you're waiting on a payment, you can check the status of your check on a recently launched web app from the IRS.)

FMD_train_186

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

01/23/2018

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

False

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

FMD_train_713

Credit for the financial burden placed on Black individuals due to systemic inequalities.

05/01/2001

Claim: African-Americans are entitled to a $5,000 slavery reparation tax credit. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2002] This goes out to all my friends, family, and everyone in the African American community. Once you receive this message please write down the number and then pass it along to every AfricanAmerican you know. As you my know, all African Americans living here in the United States are descendants of slavery,therefore our government has finally passed a bill to pay all descendants back. The way they are paying us back is through a refund called the, "Black Inheritance Tax Refund/40 Acres and a Mule". When you call this number you'll give them your name, address, and phone number and they'll send you out a packet, which includes further details and information on how to receive the refund. I was informed that it will take only two weeks to receive the packet and then two weeks to receive themoney. Now, if you know our government I bet they are not expecting a lot of people to call for this refund, and they may be right, because many of us will not be informed of this. Therefore, this is why I am taking it upon myself to pass on this information, so our community will soon be informed through word-of-mouth about what has been owed to our ancestors all these years. Black Inheritance Tax Refund 1-800-441-5629 press #3 to direct you to the appropriate line open betweenEast Coast: 8am and 12amWest Coast: 5am and 9pm Expect to wait anywhere from 5mins-25mins (There will not be any music to entertain you while you wait!) Ps: You must be 18 years or older and I'm assuming a legal residence of the United States. So, request an application for yourself, husband, wife, sister, brother, father, mother, etc, or just pass the number along. God Bless You All and please check this out!!!!!!!! Origins: In 2000, bogus letters claiming certain senior citizens were eligible for slavery reparations or higher Social Security payments were circulating in black churches in the South and elsewhere. The letters claimed blacks born before 1928 were eligible for a $5,000 "Negro Inheritance Tax Refund" due to a "Slave Reparation Act," and folks born between 1911 and 1926 might be entitled to higher monthly Social Security payments. This was but one of the many forms the "slavery reparation tax credit" misinformation has taken over the years. An April 1993 Lena Sherrod commentary entitled "Forty Acres and a Mule" which appeared in Essence magazine dealt with the concept that reparations were owed to the descendants of African-Americans who were forced to work unpaid for 246 years, and that African-Americans were owed a tax rebate for years of legalized racial discrimination. Sherrod wrote: The government also owes African-Americans a tax rebate for the 60 years of segregation and Jim Crow that followed slavery. Although we were consigned by law to second-class citizenship, we were still forced to pay first-class taxes . the delinquent tax rebate [is] now estimated . to be at $43,209 per household." Since de facto racial discrimination continues to function as a hidden Black tax, it ought to be deductible. So when income-tax time rolls around, on line 59 of form 1040 which asks you to list 'other payments' simply enter $43,209 in 'Black taxes' and compute accordingly. This commentary undoubtedly helped to foster the belief that a real income tax deduction was available as a form of reparation to the descendants of slaves. In 2002, people were being urged in e-mail to call an 800 number. Yet it's all the same hoax. No matter whether you got the letter from your church or read about the give-back in a magazine, the "reparations credit" does not and never has existed. Those who claim the deduction because they are black can be subject to fines and penalties, so really, really think twice before trying to wring it out of Uncle Sam. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) can fine a taxpayer $500 for filing a frivolous claim. Moreover, if the tax department fails to catch the erroneous deduction at the time of filing, it has an additional six years to right its error. Upon catching the error, the taxmen would not only strike off the deduction, but would calculate interest owed on the new balance of tax due, dating it to the year of the original return. (For example, if you claimed the credit in 1994, and the IRS caught it in 1998, your 1994 return would be re-computed to remove the effect of the bogus deduction. You'd now get a bill from the IRS for the re-computed difference between tax paid and tax due, plus all the interest that had piled up on it across those four years, and maybe even a $500 penalty for trying to pull the wool over the tax department's eyes. Eeesh.) IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains. Form 2439 Though word of the phony benefits is most often spread by well-meaning individuals whose only motivation is ensuring those who are supposedly in line for the break hear about it, at times unscrupulous tax preparers have stepped in to turn what is already a heart-wrenching disappointment into an out-and-out fraud perpetrated on the unwary by charging fees of hundreds (sometimes thousands) of dollars to "help" people apply for these nonexistent benefits. In a common version of this take-down, a con man promises his unwary clients that he can obtain up to $40,000 in "slave reparation" credits for them from the government and offers to file the necessary tax forms on their behalf in exchange for a percentage of their refunds. He then loads up his clients' tax returns with all manner of deductions and credits they're not entitled to take and thereby scams the government into sending them refund checks. When the IRS later goes over the returns more thoroughly and starts clamoring for their money back, the victims are left holding the bag. The $43,209 "Black tax refund" figure one sometimes hears bandied about is said to be based on the estimated value of "40 acres and a mule," a reparation supposedly laid out in an 1866 bill which lore claims was passed by Congress but was vetoed by President Andrew Johnson. The truth is a bit more complicated than that. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite. One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15, Special Field Order No. 15 Sherman was neither a humanitarian reformer nor a man with any particular concern for blacks. Instead of seeing Field Order 15 as a blueprint for the transformation of Southern society, he viewed it mainly as a way of relieving the immediate pressure caused by a large number of impoverished blacks following his army. The land grants, he later claimed, were intended only to make "temporary provisions for the freedmen and their families during the rest of the war," not to convey permanent possession. Understandably, however, the freedmen assumed that the land was to be theirs, especially after Gen. Rufus Saxton, assigned by Sherman to oversee the implementation of his order, informed a large gathering of blacks "that they were to be put in possession of lands, upon which they might locate their families and work out for themselves a living and respectability." Debate continues over whether Sherman acted solely on his own authority in issuing Special Field Order No. 15 or whether he had the approval of the War Department (or even President Lincoln himself), but the end result was that a new policy (known as Howard's Circular 15) issued by the White House in September 1865 ordered the restoration of land to pardoned owners and thereby took away from freedmen the land appropriated for them by Sherman under Special Field Order No. 15 (The order made no provisions for giving mules to freedmen, but Foner notes that after issuing it, "Sherman later provided that the army could assist [freedmen] with the loan of mules.") Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property. One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land." However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules. Freedmen's Bureau Freedmen's Bureau Act President Johnson did not veto the Freedmen's Bureau Act, which was passed by Congress in March 1865 and signed by President Lincoln. (Johnson did not assume the presidency until Lincoln's assassination the following month.) Two events occurred in February 1866, both of which have been misstated as overturning the "forty acres" provision of the Freedmen's Bureau Act: An amendment to the Freedmen's Bureau Bill (also known as the "Second Freedmen's Bureau Act") proposed by Congressman Thaddeus Stevens, to add "forfeited estates of the enemy" to the land available to blacks, was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Representatives. (At that time, the only group of slaveholders who were compelled to provide their former slaves with land were Indians who sided with the Confederacy.) President Johnson vetoed the Freedman's Bureau Bill, which sought to extend the life of the bureau indefinitely (it had originally been chartered only for one year after the end of the Civil War) and to greatly increase its powers. Congress passed the bill again (in modified form) over Johnson's veto in July 1866. The Southern Homestead Act of 1866 did in fact make land in five southern states available to freed blacks, but only public land, not plantations or other property confiscated from former slaveholders. Unfortunately, most of the land still available in the South for homesteading was too swampy and too far away from transportation links to be of much good to freedmen, and even then the largest portion of this inferior land was claimed by whites (often for quick resale to lumber companies). Although the notion of a "Black Inheritance Tax Refund" has long since been debunked and disclaimed, it nonetheless lives on and continues to cause headaches to the IRS and taxpayers alike. In April 2002, the Washington Post reported that the IRS had received more than 100,000 tax returns seeking nonexistent slavery-tax credits and had mistakenly paid out more than $30 million in erroneous refunds in 2000 and 2001. And in April 2005, the Manhattan U.S. attorney's office obtained a temporary restraining order enjoining a New York man from preparing income tax returns for others because he had "been including bogus tax credits such as reparations for African-American slavery and segregation." Barbara "taxing the imagination" Mikkelson Last updated: 27 May 2011 Brown, Timothy. "Black Churches in the South Targeted in Mail Hoax." The Associated Press. 31 August 2000. Deibel, Mary. "IRS Warns Black Taxpayers About Reparation-Claim Scam." The Washington Times. 7 October 2000 (p. A2). Fennell, Edward. "Slavery Reparations Program Labeled Lie." The [Charleston] Post and Courier. 24 September 2000 (p. B1). Foner, Eric. Reconstruction: America's Unfinished Revolution. New York: Harper & Row, 1988. ISBN 0-060-91453-X (pp. 70-71, 245-246). Foner, Eric and John Garraty. The Reader's Companion to American History. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1991. ISBN 0-395-51372-3 (pp. 987-988). Josar, David. "IRS Warns Against Trying to Get Refund for Reparations." The Detroit News. 28 August 1996 (p. D1). Kessler, Glenn. "IRS Paid $30 Million in Credits for Slavery." The Washington Post. 13 April 2002 (p. A1). La Hay, Patricia. "Slavery Reparations Tax Break Is Illegal." The Arizona Republic. 9 August 1997 (p. A1). McLeod, Ramon. "Even Street Gangs Are Among Those Involved in Fraud." The San Francisco Chronicle. 13 April 1996 (p. A17). Moore, Linda. "League Explains Nonrole in Slavery Reparations Hoax." The [Memphis] Commercial Appeal. 15 September 2000 (p. C2). Oubre, Claude F. Forty Acres and a Mule: The Freedmen's Bureau and Black Land Ownership. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1978. ISBN 0-807-10298-9. Sherrod, L.G. "Forty Acres and a Mule." Essence. April 1993 (p. 124). Stiehm, Jamie. "IRS Official Warns of Tax Hoax Using Slave Reparations." The Baltimore Sun. 12 February 2002. The Associated Press. "Blacks Targeted in Slavery Reparation Scam." 6 October 2000. Chicago Sun-Times. "Reparations Scam Preys on Ignorance." 17 July 1996 (p. 47). Chicago Tribune. "Tax Myths Don't Add Up at IRS." 23 February 1997 (p. C7). Reuters. "Man Barred from Making Slavery Tax Claims." 15 April 2005.

True

IRS offices across the nation have received thousands of requests daily for Form 2439, which some people have been mistakenly led to believe reimburses the descendants of slaves. Form 2439 is actually for shareholders trying to claim undistributed capital gains. The origins of the belief that the U.S. government promised 40 acres of land and a mule to freed slaves after the Civil War are indefinite. One possible source of this claim is Special Field Order No. 15,Another possible source of the "40 acres and a mule" belief is the creation of the Freedmen's Bureau (originally the Bureau of Refugees, Freedmen and Abandoned Lands), a federal agency established as a subsidiary of the War Department in March 1865 (a month before the end of the Civil War) to deal with issues concerning refugees and freedmen within states under reconstruction, including the management of abandoned and confiscated property. One of the provisions of the Freedmen's Bureau Act directed that the bureau's commissioner should "have authority to set apart, for the use of loyal refugees and freedmen, such tracts of land within the insurrectionary states as shall have been abandoned, or to which the United States shall have acquired title by confiscation or sale, or otherwise, and to every male citizen, whether refugee or freedman, as aforesaid, there shall be assigned not more than forty acres of such land." However, this act did not propose giving property to freed slaves (the land was to be leased to freedmen for three years, then made available for purchase by them), nor did it make any mention of mules.

FMD_train_1833

Says Adam Hasners record includes requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks.

08/08/2011

Adam Hasner, fake conservative? That's the contention being made by George LeMieux, as the two Republicans vie for the GOP nomination to take on incumbent Democratic U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. LeMieux, a former U.S. senator, is challenging Hasner, a former Florida House majority leader, on two core issues: taxes and spending. LeMieux campaign e-mails and Web posts on Aug. 1, 2011,show a cartoon Hasnerwearing a joker hat and holding a mask in his hand. He is attending his own masquerade ball one where hes only pretending to be conservative.The Masquerade Ball gown Hasner has chosen on the key issues of taxes and spending is a prime example. Hasners rhetoric simply does not match his record. Hasners record includes: Increasing Spending A 40% increase during his time in the legislature. Requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. Billions in new taxes and fees. Voting to accept Obama stimulus money.The earmark claim caught our eye. Hasner, elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2002,served as majority leaderfrom 2008-10 before term limits ended his run. That means plenty of time to rack up requests for pet projects. But did he request over $92.2 million in earmarks? And if he did, how did that compare with requests by other lawmakers?A more detailed look at Hasners record atGeorgeForFlorida.comclarifies the LeMieux campaign was talking about Floridas twist on the earmark, the Community Budget Issue Request. As weve written inother earmark fact-checks, its a way state legislators use to request funding for local projects. Lawmakers had to file requests for a local park, say, or a new community wastewater system and attach their names to each one.The Legislaturestopped the practicein 2009 as budgets got tighter. But the Florida House keepsan archive of such requests, funded and unfunded, at FloridaHouse.gov.A PolitiFact Florida analysis oflawmakers requests from 2003-08shows Hasner indeed made use of CBIRs to ask for state funding for everything from acommunity child care center in Delray Beach($25,000) to support for amedical cluster and research institutein the Miami area ($20 million). He requested $1 million for manatee avoidance technology, made regular requests on behalf ofbrain injury prevention effortsamong seniors ($199,450) and asked for taxpayer aid for drainage improvements, boardwalk replacements and reclaimed water systems.Over six years, his requests total just over $92.2 million.Well mention that the archive doesnt make it clear which projects ultimately won funding, and indeed some requests may have been made year after year precisely because they failed to attract lawmaker support. Rep. Adam Hasners Community Budget Issue Requests 2003-08 That means the amount of local funding Hasner requested for his district was in the bottom half of lawmakers in four out of six years, though it jumped to the 60th percentile in 2006, the year before he served as deputy majority leader, and the 86th percentile in 2007, the year before he took the top seat.But even in 2007, the amount Hasner requested was eclipsed by top CBIR filers, such asRep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna,who wanted $202.3 million for projects in her district nearly four times Hasners total.A couple of other notes.First, we feel we should at least mention that LeMieux has a record of voting for earmarks while he was in the U.S. Senate. LeMieux, whohadnt held elected officebefore he was appointed to U.S. Sen. Mel Martinezs seat in 2009 by his former boss, Gov. Charlie Crist, has claimed henever requested a single earmark. But he didnt have to: Earmarks bound for Florida were already packed into appropriations bills before LeMieux took over for Martinez. LeMieux voted forseveral such bills. He also activelylobbied for local stimulus projects. Later, he voted for a moratorium to ban federal earmarks through 2013 but so did Sen. Bill Nelson.Meanwhile, as the Florida economy faltered, Hasner cut his own local funding requests in 2008 to a single item $385,000. That put him last among more than 100 lawmakers who made local funding requests. And he was in the leadership when the decision was made to stop such requests altogether. Hasners campaign, for the record, thinks its unfair to call Community Budget Issue Requests earmarks, which campaign spokesman Douglass Mayer said evokes last-minute congressional handshake deals.The difference here is transparency, Mayer said. CBIRs are submitted with full accountability and voted on in the light of day. Earmarks are snuck in the backdoor of the federal budget process to avoid accountability.But CBIRs are often referred to as Floridas version of the earmark, and documentation from the LeMieux campaign makes the reference clear.Where does this leave us?LeMieuxs campaign says that (Adam) Hasners record includes requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. On the numbers, LeMieux is right -- from 2003-08 Hasner requested $92.2 million for projects through a process called Community Budget Issue Requests. But we think there are a couple of caveats worth noting. First is the CBIR process itself -- which was open and transparent. Legislators made requests for dollars in writing and were forced to explain what the money would be used for. Second, it's important to note that Hasner wasn't particularly aggressive in requesting money through CBIRs and more than 100 House members asked for more than he did in 2008. Lastly, it strikes us as hypocritical for LeMieux to attack competitors over earmarks when his own record where it exists shows votes and personal lobbying for local spending. We rate this claim Mostly True.

True

LeMieux campaign e-mails and Web posts on Aug. 1, 2011,show a cartoon Hasnerwearing a joker hat and holding a mask in his hand. He is attending his own masquerade ball one where hes only pretending to be conservative.The Masquerade Ball gown Hasner has chosen on the key issues of taxes and spending is a prime example. Hasners rhetoric simply does not match his record. Hasners record includes: Increasing Spending A 40% increase during his time in the legislature. Requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. Billions in new taxes and fees. Voting to accept Obama stimulus money.The earmark claim caught our eye. Hasner, elected to the Florida House of Representatives in 2002,served as majority leaderfrom 2008-10 before term limits ended his run. That means plenty of time to rack up requests for pet projects. But did he request over $92.2 million in earmarks? And if he did, how did that compare with requests by other lawmakers?A more detailed look at Hasners record atGeorgeForFlorida.comclarifies the LeMieux campaign was talking about Floridas twist on the earmark, the Community Budget Issue Request. As weve written inother earmark fact-checks, its a way state legislators use to request funding for local projects. Lawmakers had to file requests for a local park, say, or a new community wastewater system and attach their names to each one.The Legislaturestopped the practicein 2009 as budgets got tighter. But the Florida House keepsan archive of such requests, funded and unfunded, at FloridaHouse.gov.A PolitiFact Florida analysis oflawmakers requests from 2003-08shows Hasner indeed made use of CBIRs to ask for state funding for everything from acommunity child care center in Delray Beach($25,000) to support for amedical cluster and research institutein the Miami area ($20 million). He requested $1 million for manatee avoidance technology, made regular requests on behalf ofbrain injury prevention effortsamong seniors ($199,450) and asked for taxpayer aid for drainage improvements, boardwalk replacements and reclaimed water systems.Over six years, his requests total just over $92.2 million.Well mention that the archive doesnt make it clear which projects ultimately won funding, and indeed some requests may have been made year after year precisely because they failed to attract lawmaker support.That means the amount of local funding Hasner requested for his district was in the bottom half of lawmakers in four out of six years, though it jumped to the 60th percentile in 2006, the year before he served as deputy majority leader, and the 86th percentile in 2007, the year before he took the top seat.But even in 2007, the amount Hasner requested was eclipsed by top CBIR filers, such asRep. Marti Coley, R-Marianna,who wanted $202.3 million for projects in her district nearly four times Hasners total.A couple of other notes.First, we feel we should at least mention that LeMieux has a record of voting for earmarks while he was in the U.S. Senate. LeMieux, whohadnt held elected officebefore he was appointed to U.S. Sen. Mel Martinezs seat in 2009 by his former boss, Gov. Charlie Crist, has claimed henever requested a single earmark. But he didnt have to: Earmarks bound for Florida were already packed into appropriations bills before LeMieux took over for Martinez. LeMieux voted forseveral such bills. He also activelylobbied for local stimulus projects. Later, he voted for a moratorium to ban federal earmarks through 2013 but so did Sen. Bill Nelson.Meanwhile, as the Florida economy faltered, Hasner cut his own local funding requests in 2008 to a single item $385,000. That put him last among more than 100 lawmakers who made local funding requests. And he was in the leadership when the decision was made to stop such requests altogether. Hasners campaign, for the record, thinks its unfair to call Community Budget Issue Requests earmarks, which campaign spokesman Douglass Mayer said evokes last-minute congressional handshake deals.The difference here is transparency, Mayer said. CBIRs are submitted with full accountability and voted on in the light of day. Earmarks are snuck in the backdoor of the federal budget process to avoid accountability.But CBIRs are often referred to as Floridas version of the earmark, and documentation from the LeMieux campaign makes the reference clear.Where does this leave us?LeMieuxs campaign says that (Adam) Hasners record includes requesting over $92.2 million in earmarks. On the numbers, LeMieux is right -- from 2003-08 Hasner requested $92.2 million for projects through a process called Community Budget Issue Requests. But we think there are a couple of caveats worth noting.

FMD_train_149

1 Calorie Diet Sodas Rumor

06/11/2005

Claim: Diet Coke (or Diet Pepsi) contains more calories than claimed, but the company gets away with the deception by paying a yearly fine. Examples: [Collected on the Internet, 2003] There was an old rumour that stated that a particular diet soda company (Coke I believe) paid a fine to print their cans as stating that the soda had 'just one calorie'. According to the rumour, companies who knowingly printed misinformation on the nutritional facts of their product would have to pay a fine. The company in question figured it could make more money by convincing people the product only had 1 calorie than it would cost to pay the fine, meaning a higher profit margin for them. [Collected on the Internet, 2002] I heard a rumor today that Diet Coke actually contains 40 calories, and the Coca-Cola company pays a huge fine to the FDA every year to keep "0 calories" on the can. Have you heard anything of this? [Collected on the Internet, 2004] Comment: Is it true that Pepsi One is really not one calorie and that Pepsi Co. pays a fine every year for false advertising (because the calorie count is a lot higher than that)? Origins: How long this particular belief about low-calorie sodas has been around is anyone's guess, but we have recorded sightings of it dating back to 1990. We've encountered claims of Diet Coke, Diet Pepsi, or Pepsi One (which are listed as containing zero, zero, and one calories per 12-oz. can, respectively) actually containing 25, 50, 70, or 90 calories, in each case with the parent company's paying an annual fine to continue falsely listing the beverage's caloric content. (A can of non-diet cola typically contains about 120 calories.) The rumor associates most strongly with Diet Coke (which is known as Coca-Cola Light outside the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Great Britain). In the U.S., laws governing the disclosure of nutritional and caloric content of ingestibles prevent the rumor from being true. The Federal Trade Commission serves as the watchdog in this area: under the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is empowered to "prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations" from using "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." At various times in its history it has fined corporations for their having made false or misleading nutritional claims about their products. Such fines are a reaction to what has already taken place; they are not grants of immunity against continued breaking of the rules. Consumers have legal remedy available to them against corporations that have deceived them through certain provisions of the Lanham Act. Many other countries have similar safeguards in place. Federal Trade Commission Act Lanham Act Common sense should also serve to rule out what the whispers say about an annual payoff. For health reasons, many potential consumers of diet drinks have to carefully monitor what they ingest. Were the rumor true, diabetics with a love of Diet Coke, for instance, would experience glucose levels spiraling out of control. Imagine the lawsuits resulting from that! This false belief enjoys a measure of popularity because of what it says about common perception of large companies and of the government agencies tasked with shielding consumers from harm: that one will bamboozle its customers for the sake of financial profit, the other will sell out those it is mandated to protect, and neither is to be trusted. Such misgivings also find voice in other rumors, such as the one about bananas imported from Costa Rica being infected with a flesh-eating bacteria. bananas If there is the tiniest bit of truth to this rumor, it's that even though sodas such as Diet Coke and Diet Pepsi are advertised as having zero calories, they do have some caloric content from ingredients such as artificial sweeteners, citric acid, and caramel coloring. However, the number of calories per can is still less than one, and FDA regulations allow any food product that contains fewer than five calories per serving to be advertised as calorie-free. Barbara "calorie countered" Mikkelson Last updated: 26 August 2013

False

In the U.S., laws governing the disclosure of nutritional and caloric content of ingestibles prevent the rumor from being true. The Federal Trade Commission serves as the watchdog in this area: under the Federal Trade Commission Act, it is empowered to "prevent persons, partnerships, or corporations" from using "unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce." At various times in its history it has fined corporations for their having made false or misleading nutritional claims about their products. Such fines are a reaction to what has already taken place; they are not grants of immunity against continued breaking of the rules. Consumers have legal remedy available to them against corporations that have deceived them through certain provisions of the Lanham Act. Many other countries have similar safeguards in place.This false belief enjoys a measure of popularity because of what it says about common perception of large companies and of the government agencies tasked with shielding consumers from harm: that one will bamboozle its customers for the sake of financial profit, the other will sell out those it is mandated to protect, and neither is to be trusted. Such misgivings also find voice in other rumors, such as the one about bananas imported from Costa Rica being infected with a flesh-eating bacteria.

FMD_train_904

Immigration Bill Free Cars

06/26/2013

Claim: A 2013 immigration reform bill provides young people with free cars to transport them to their jobs. Example: [Collected via e-mail, June 2013] BREAKING: Immigration bill now includes free cars (at tax payer expense) for young people to help them get to work! LIKE if you agree: The Senate should vote no on this Gang of 8 immigration bill! Call and let them know what you think! (888) 978-3134 Fox News reported that the riders made to the 2013 Immigration bill now in the Senate that Bernie Sanders has added a provision for free cars, motorcycles or scooters for "young people to use as transportation" to jobs. This was reported by Laura Ingraham on Fox and Friends on June 25, 2013. Is there any truth to this report. I can not find a copy of the 1,190 page 2013 immigration bill to read it my self S.744 Hoeven-Corker Amendment "The Hoeven-Corker amendment takes big and important steps on the immigration issue that matters most: border security," Senator Lamar Alexander said. "It would double the number of agents on the southwest border, construct 700 miles of new or upgraded fencing and spend $3.2 billion on new security technology that was perfected in Iraq and Afghanistan." The Hoeven-Corker amendment would add 20,000 border patrol agents, enough to allow putting one agent every 1,000 feet along the U.S. southwest border. The border patrol agents, fencing and security technology plan would have to be in place before anyone under the immigration legislation's "Registered Provisional Immigrant" program would be allowed to apply for legal permanent residency, otherwise known as a green card. Democratic-affiliated Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont has been outspokenly critical of the potential economic effects of S.744, arguing that the bill would "allow college students from around the world to take jobs that young Americans would otherwise perform." In response, he drafted a Youth Jobs Plan that would "provide $1.5 billion over two years for states and local communities to help find jobs for more than 400,000 16- to 24-year-olds who were hard hit by the Wall Street-caused recession." That job plan was incorporated into the Hoeven-Corker Amendment under a heading of "TITLE V JOBS FOR YOUTH." Youth Jobs Plan TITLE V The claim that the immigration bill includes a provision granting "free cars, motorcycles or scooters for young people" stems from a very broad, speculative interpretation of one sentence in the jobs plan portion of the Hoeven-Corker Amendment which generally directs how the job plan funds should be used: IN GENERAL. The funds made available under this section shall be used (A) to provide summer employment opportunities for low-income youth, with direct linkages to academic and occupational learning, and may be used to provide supportive services, such as transportation or child care, that is necessary to enable the participation of such youth in the opportunities; and (B) to provide year-round employment opportunities, which may be combined with other activities authorized under section 129 of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 17 2854), to low-income youth. As stated, the bill does not contain a specific provision to provide "free cars for young people to help them get to work." It includes a clause allowing that youth job program funds may be used to "provide supportive services, such as transportation" to low-income youth taking part in summer employment opportunities. Whether and how that provision would be applied in practice is purely speculative at this point and could vary widely from place to place, potentially ranging anywhere from arranging carpools and subsidizing bus fare to buying, leasing, or renting motor vehicles to be temporarily utilized in ferrying job program participants to work. But the government isn't going to be buying up cars and turning ownership of them over to young people engaged in summer job programs. Last updated: 26 June 2013

False

Youth Jobs Plan that would "provide $1.5 billion over two years for states and local communities to help find jobs for more than 400,000 16- to 24-year-olds who were hard hit by the Wall Street-caused recession." That job plan was incorporated into the Hoeven-Corker Amendment under a heading of "TITLE V JOBS FOR YOUTH."

FMD_train_806

Jaden Smith Commits Suicide

07/28/2016

In July 2016, news raced through social media that Jaden Smith, actor and son of Will and Jada Pinkett-Smith, had committed suicide: The news was not true, and didn't come from a legitimate source. In fact, users who clicked the above-displayed message were greeted with a popup message requesting permission from a Facebook app to post on their behalf, making the article appear less like a hoax and more like an outright scam: Messages about Jaden Smith's alleged suicide were shared from various sites, and led to a variety of dodgy-sounding Facebook apps, including "Smart Mobiles," "Gadgy Land," "Pakiza," "Top Feeds" and several others. Intrepid internet users who clicked the link and gave the app permission were eventually greeted with one of several "news" story claiming that Jaden Smith had committed suicide. The web sites responsible for this hoax have published dozens of fake news stories and graphics with this false claim: Users who granted these apps permission to post to Facebook on their behalf quickly found this death hoax posted to their own Facebook feeds, thereby replicating itself across social media. Jaden Smith himself has been active on his social media accounts, seemingly unaware that he's supposed to be dead. He posted a photograph of himself on 27 July 2016: posted Clickbait stories such as celebrity death hoaxes are common ways for dubious web sites and apps to spread malware. Even if the sites don't spread invasive software outright, your computer or social media accounts can still be easily hijacked so that unscrupulous companies can profit from a seemingly large social media presence. malware

False

Jaden Smith himself has been active on his social media accounts, seemingly unaware that he's supposed to be dead. He posted a photograph of himself on 27 July 2016:Clickbait stories such as celebrity death hoaxes are common ways for dubious web sites and apps to spread malware. Even if the sites don't spread invasive software outright, your computer or social media accounts can still be easily hijacked so that unscrupulous companies can profit from a seemingly large social media presence.

FMD_train_845

Was Deutsche Bank the source of funding for Auschwitz, Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, and ISIS?

11/13/2020

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

True

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

FMD_train_1850

Cicero's thoughts on fiscal management by the government

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_1858

Consider carefully prior to giving a donation!

11/13/2005

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_1432

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

04/08/2020

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

False

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

FMD_train_1036

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

06/18/2021

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

True

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

FMD_train_639

Can Getting COVID-19 Vaccine Disqualify You From Life Insurance Benefits?

03/11/2021

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 As of March 10, 2021, more than 95 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine had been administered across the U.S. And, as jabs went into arms, misinformation regarding the immunization continued to spread across the internet. COVID-19 vaccine A number of social media users argued in March 2021 that life insurance providers could deny payout of a death benefit to beneficiaries if the policyholder died as a result of an experimental COVID-19 vaccination. number argued The claim spread widely on Twitter but appeared to have originated on an unidentified social media platform shared in a group called Parler Refugees, presumably a forum for those who previously used Parler, a social media platform popular among the alt-right and conspiracy theorists. claim appeared This claim is false. The original post was shared by a user by the name of Tracey Wiggins, and was specific to Canada. In response to the misinformation being shared online, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, Inc. (CHLIA) issued a statement on March 8 declaring that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine will have no effect on individual or workplace coverage or benefits from life insurance or supplementary health insurance, including disability, nor will it have any effect on the ability to apply for future coverage. statement March 8 No one should be afraid and choose to not protect themselves from COVID-19 because they are worried about it affecting their benefits, said Stephen Frank, President and CEO of CLHIA. All of Canadas life and health insurers are supportive of Canadians receiving government-approved vaccinations to protect themselves from serious illness and death. The insurance lobbying group American Council of Life Insurers (ACLI) spokesperson Jack Dolan also confirmed to Snopes in an email that receiving the COVID-19 immunization will have no effect on life insurance in the U.S. and even in instances of experimental drugs, life insurers have to pay death claims. At the time of writing, three mRNA vaccines individually manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech were being distributed in the U.S. All three vaccinations were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under an Emergency Use Authorization, which allows for new therapeutics to be administered during public health emergencies like the coronavirus pandemic. An experimental or investigational drug, on the other hand, is one that has not received approval from government regulatory authorities but has shown promise in treating a disease or medical condition, according to the FDA. Under this definition, the COVID-19 vaccine would not be considered an "experimental" drug. Johnson & Johnson Moderna Pfizer-BioNTech Emergency Use Authorization FDA While COVID-19 vaccines are still being rigorously tested in broader-scale trials, health officials argue that the general safety and efficacy of the immunizations have warranted large-scale distribution. Snopes contacted the FDA and the National Institutes of Health for further clarification on the status of the three vaccines but did not receive a response in time for publication. We will update the article accordingly. As of March 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), has not detected patterns in the cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines. VAERS "Over 92 million doses of COVID-19 vaccines were administered in the United States from December 14, 2020, through March 8, 2021. During this time, VAERS received 1,637 reports of death (0.0018%) among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine," wrote the agency. "A review of available clinical information including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records revealed no evidence that vaccination contributed to patient deaths." In some rare cases, health experts noted that some people experienced a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis after getting their COVID-19 vaccine approximately two to five people per 1 million in the U.S. However, reports indicate that anaphylaxis nearly always occurs within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccination and administrators will observe the vaccine recipient during this timeframe in the event that they need to respond. anaphylaxis Correction [March 25, 2021]: A quote misattributed to a spokesperson for the organization is now correctly attributed to Stephen Frank, President and CEO of CLHIA.

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. As of March 10, 2021, more than 95 million doses of the COVID-19 vaccine had been administered across the U.S. And, as jabs went into arms, misinformation regarding the immunization continued to spread across the internet.A number of social media users argued in March 2021 that life insurance providers could deny payout of a death benefit to beneficiaries if the policyholder died as a result of an experimental COVID-19 vaccination.The claim spread widely on Twitter but appeared to have originated on an unidentified social media platform shared in a group called Parler Refugees, presumably a forum for those who previously used Parler, a social media platform popular among the alt-right and conspiracy theorists.The original post was shared by a user by the name of Tracey Wiggins, and was specific to Canada. In response to the misinformation being shared online, the Canadian Life and Health Insurance Association, Inc. (CHLIA) issued a statement on March 8 declaring that receiving the COVID-19 vaccine will have no effect on individual or workplace coverage or benefits from life insurance or supplementary health insurance, including disability, nor will it have any effect on the ability to apply for future coverage.At the time of writing, three mRNA vaccines individually manufactured by Johnson & Johnson, Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech were being distributed in the U.S. All three vaccinations were approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration under an Emergency Use Authorization, which allows for new therapeutics to be administered during public health emergencies like the coronavirus pandemic. An experimental or investigational drug, on the other hand, is one that has not received approval from government regulatory authorities but has shown promise in treating a disease or medical condition, according to the FDA. Under this definition, the COVID-19 vaccine would not be considered an "experimental" drug. As of March 11, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), has not detected patterns in the cause of death that would indicate a safety problem with COVID-19 vaccines.In some rare cases, health experts noted that some people experienced a severe allergic reaction known as anaphylaxis after getting their COVID-19 vaccine approximately two to five people per 1 million in the U.S. However, reports indicate that anaphylaxis nearly always occurs within 30 minutes of receiving the vaccination and administrators will observe the vaccine recipient during this timeframe in the event that they need to respond.

FMD_train_950

Campbell's Soup Tackling Hunger

12/19/2000

Claim: Campbell's Soup will donate a can of soup to the hungry for every click received on a special web page. . Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2000] Here is an easy way to make a difference this holiday season. Campbell's is donating a can of soup to the needy for every person that goes to their site and votes for their favorite NFL team. Go to the site and it is right there, very easy to do. It will only take a few seconds of your time to fill some empty tummies with warm soup this winter. Please forward this message to everyone in your address book too. Thanks. https://chunky.nfl.com/click_for_cans.html https://chunky.nfl.com/click_for_cans.html Origins: The above program to attract visitors to the Campbell's Soup web site through the promise of donating cans of soup to the hungry began in 2000. Akin to the Hunger Site's "click to donate" program, Campbell's Soup ties its beneficence to clicks made on a special page on chunky.com, its Campbell's Chunky web site (which is separate from its main site at campbellsoup.com). Hunger Site chunky.com campbellsoup.com The 2000 promotion target of 5 million cans was reached in mid-December 2000. This on-again, off-again program was restarted in the fall of 2001 with a target of another 5 million cans of soup; it was wrapped up after Campbell's announced that the goal of 5 million cans had been met, then was relaunched with the goal of donating an additional 500,000 cans. During the 2002 campaign Campbell's was just shy of the halfway mark on 23 October 2002 and had reached their target of 5 million cans by 7 November 2002. Fall 2003 saw yet another interation of the program with the usual 5 million-can goal. As to what the promotion is about, chunky.com's page provides this information regarding the charity: Our Tackling Hunger campaign will result in donations of up to a total of 5 million cans of a variety of Campbell's soups on behalf of all 32 NFL teams. Click for Cans donations are made over the course of the year to a variety of hunger relief charities across the country, in NFL cities and in many other communities. However, Campbell's has been oddly reluctant to release information about the mechanics of their "Tackling Hunger" program. When we asked them back in 2000 for some details such as whom the food went to they refused to answer, claiming such information was "proprietary." Even when we reframed our question to remove any suggestion that we were seeking actual names of organizations or individuals (e.g., "Does it go to group homes, or hospitals, or directly to the homes of needy people?"), they stonewalled us again with a claim that such information was "proprietary." We made additional inquiries to Campbell's Soups concerning these matters because we believe those who participate in donation programs should know whom they're donating to. Campbell's never answered them, not during the 2000 promotion nor during the year to follow. The promotion ended with our having no better idea whose hunger was being relieved by this program than what we started out with. And that's disturbing. Perhaps what Campbell's is reluctant to disclose is that the promotion doesn't involve their shipping hundreds of thousands of cans of soup directly from their plant(s) to food pantries and homeless shelters in the represented NFL cities, nor does it allow those cities to determine who gets the soup: Campbell's handles the 'Tackling Hunger' payoff by collecting store returns of dented and otherwise unsaleable cans of soup and sending them to redistribution centers of their choosing. The (store-returned) cans of soup do eventually reach the needy, but any food pantry or other charity group that doesn't work directly with a redistribution outlet can't claim them, and the NFL teams and cities have no say in where the cans end up. An article in the newsletter for the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin, chronicled the disappointment one team's fans experienced with the program's administration in 2001. Green Bay Barbara "this tomato is not too chicken to use her noodle" Mikkelson Last updated: 1 October 2007

True

https://chunky.nfl.com/click_for_cans.htmlOrigins: The above program to attract visitors to the Campbell's Soup web site through the promise of donating cans of soup to the hungry began in 2000. Akin to the Hunger Site's "click to donate" program, Campbell's Soup ties its beneficence to clicks made on a special page on chunky.com, its Campbell's Chunky web site (which is separate from its main site at campbellsoup.com). Perhaps what Campbell's is reluctant to disclose is that the promotion doesn't involve their shipping hundreds of thousands of cans of soup directly from their plant(s) to food pantries and homeless shelters in the represented NFL cities, nor does it allow those cities to determine who gets the soup: Campbell's handles the 'Tackling Hunger' payoff by collecting store returns of dented and otherwise unsaleable cans of soup and sending them to redistribution centers of their choosing. The (store-returned) cans of soup do eventually reach the needy, but any food pantry or other charity group that doesn't work directly with a redistribution outlet can't claim them, and the NFL teams and cities have no say in where the cans end up. An article in the newsletter for the Catholic Diocese of Green Bay, Wisconsin, chronicled the disappointment one team's fans experienced with the program's administration in 2001.

FMD_train_609

Volkswagen Passat

05/07/2012

Claim: The U.S. government prohibits high mileage Volkswagen Passat automobiles from being purchased by U.S. customers. Examples: [Collected via e-mail, May 2012] VW Passat 78.5 MPG in the UK Below is an email about the VW Passat that is made in the USA which gets over 70MPG but is not allow to be sold in the USA. Just one more Washington Red Flag.I have included a short youtube video and a link to VW UK web site which confirms video is correct. Checked out VW web site and you can order any car they have for sale unless you are a US Citizen. As a US Citizen VW will not deliver the higher mileage cars they manufacture in the US to US Citizens. This is true and can be verified by just trying to buy one of these cars with the blue motion engine for shipment from the US to any destination in the US. I didnt go to the Ford UK web site to check out Ford but Rick has and he says Ford has several models for sale manufactured in the US with mileage of better than 71 miles per gallon on the highway that also are available for sale in Europe but not the US. VW Web Site: https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/ https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/ Origins: May 2012 saw the circulation of the message cited above, one which claimed that Volkswagen Passat vehicles with 70+ miles per gallon (MPG) figures manufactured in the U.S. were readily available in the UK, but U.S. government regulations prohibited their being sold to U.S. customers. These claims appear to be misleading, however. First of all, a UK gallon is not the equivalent of a U.S. gallon: 1 UK gallon = 1.2 U.S. gallons, so MPG figures for automobiles in the UK are inflated by 20% relative to U.S. figures. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) process for determining average mileage ratings is generally more stringent than the process used in other countries, so EPA ratings tend to be on the conservative side. Therefore, taking both factors into consideration, a car rated at 70 MPG in the UK would likely be EPA rated somewhere around the mid- to high-40 MPG range. Second, we found no evidence of U.S. government regulations that would prohibit the sale of automobiles such as the referenced Volkswagen Passat in the United states solely because of their mileage ratings. In general, when an automobile manufacturer offers a particular model of vehicle in other parts of the world but not the U.S., it's because that model has features that don't appeal to U.S. buyers or because the model does not meet U.S. safety or environmental standards. In the case of the Volkswagen Passat models mentioned here, their lack of availability in the U.S. is likely due to a combination of those factors. Others have noted that U.S. consumers tend to focus less on mileage and prefer gasoline-powered cars with automatic transmissions and larger, higher-performance engines, but the UK version of the Passat cited here is a diesel-powered car with a manual transmission and a smaller, lower-performing engine: The UK Passat engine is very small (the 0-60 time is 12.5 seconds with a manual transmission) and most Americans won't accept such poor performance. Diesel fuel doesn't have a tax-preferred status here in the U.S. either, and the engine is probably at a premium cost due to new technology. What's more is that vehicles in the UK (but not the U.S.) are taxed by carbon emission, so vehicles in the UK are sold with a much wider choice of engines, usually including diesels and far smaller engines than are available for these vehicles in the U.S., because there is a high cost of operating the vehicle already (i.e., higher fuel prices) and these engines minimize the carbon tax portion. The dynamics of car ownership and manufacturing cars in the US versus the UK is vastly different: it's not really the regulations that are to blame. Manufacturers don't bother to get U.S. EPA certifications because they know that the demand isn't there, especially right now when the demand is for hybrid (or at the really high end, electric). I doubt that such a car would be viable to sell: people in the U.S. don't put much stock in to gas mileage in comparison to power demands. If you are going to charge a premium, you have to offer something noticeably different, and diesel probably isn't going to pass muster for most folks. Diesel vehicles in the U.S. have a bad reputation. Also, as reported in a Pure Energy Systems News (PESN) article on this topic, a Manager of Product and Technology Communications for Volkswagen of America Inc. stated that: article VW used to sell the same (or similar?) Passat as is sold in Europe here in the US. But it didn't sell very well. It was too expensive and too small in the mid-size sedan segment. So they came up with a larger version with a better price point; and of course the size effects the mileage. Volkswagen's response to our query was non-committal, stating only that they could not say when Bluemotion technology vehicles like the UK version of the Passat would be available in the U.S. We recognize that in this current economic climate, the desires of the driving public have changed. Many consumers have realized that efficiency and economy are the true values of an automobile. Emissions standards have increased, and we are working to be both ecologically responsible and provide fuel efficient vehicles people want. VW continues to research all options for fuel efficiency. We have no further information at this time if, or when the Bluemotion technology will be available in the US. Last updated: 14 May 2012

False

https://www.volkswagen.co.uk/#/new/passat-estate-vii/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption/Also, as reported in a Pure Energy Systems News (PESN) article on this topic, a Manager of Product and Technology Communications for Volkswagen of America Inc. stated that:

FMD_train_187

Hillary Clinton's $12,000 Armani Jacket

06/08/2016

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_1848

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

08/27/2019

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

True

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

FMD_train_981

Did Disney Deny Tim Allen 'Lightyear' Role Due to His Political Beliefs?

06/16/2022

In June 2022, many people expressed outrage over the claim that Disney had supposedly "canceled" actor Tim Allen, who voiced the character "Buzz Lightyear" in the original "Toy Story" movies. According to the rumor, the entertainment giant refused to cast Allen in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie due to his conservative political views. Disney Here's how the conservative news outlet "Townhall" framed the issue: "Townhall" framed the issue While it was true that actor Chris Evans not Allen was voicing Buzz in "Lightyear," Disney had not cut ties with Allen. In fact, Allen and Disney are currently working together on another project, as of this writing. Furthermore, there were several story reasons (not political ones) for a new actor to voice "Buzz Lightyear" in the 2022 movie. Chief among them: "Lightyear" focused on a fictional human character, while the "Toy Story" movies featured a fictional "Buzz Lightyear" toy. Allen In 1995, Allen debuted as the voice behind "Buzz Lightyear," an action-figure toy that came to life when humans left the room, in the Pixar movie "Toy Story." In the Pixar universe, this action-figure toy was based on a character from an action movie. Pixar's 2022 film "Lightyear" is that in-universe action movie. Sound a little confusing? In the opening moments of "Lightyear," the premise of the movie is explained like this: "In 1995, Andy got a toy. That toy is from his favorite movie. This is that movie." premise of the movie is explained like this In other words, the movie "Lightyear" did not feature the fictional toy that Allen voiced in the original "Toy Story" movies. Evans was voicing a new iteration of the "Buzz Lightyear" character. "Lightyear" producer Galyn Susman explained: explained 'Tim Allen is Buzz Lightyear the toy, and hes the embodiment of Buzz Lightyear the toy. We werent making a Toy Story movie. Were making Buzz Lightyears movie, the Lightyear movie. And so first and foremost, we just needed to have a different person playing that Lightyear, separate from the toy.' In the real world, we can compare this scenario to Batman action figures and Batman movie stars. Actor Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," but that doesn't mean he provided the voice for the latest "Batman" toys on store shelves. In fact, while Allen's co-star Tom Hanks voiced the character of "Woody" in the "Toy Story" movies, it was actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures. Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures Allen provided the voice for some "Buzz Lightyear" toys, but so have a number of other entertainers such as actor Pat Fraley. Allen provided the voice Fraley said in a 2019 interview: said in a 2019 interview So, for nine years it was one of the most lucrative roles I ever did. I did all the toys and there were a lot of them. Thats how that went down the pike. Eventually, they got rid of me and I figured they found someone better than me. I was a close match but not perfect. No, my replacement wasnt better than me but I bet he was cheaper. So, why didnt Tim Allen do the voice of Buzz Lightyear for all of those toys instead? Tim was too busy. He had a show on TV and was doing movies. He had Home Improvement and those Santa Clause movies at the time. Home Improvement Santa Clause We reached out to Disney to see if Allen was voicing new "Buzz Lightyear" toys, and we will update this article accordingly. As this rumor circulated on social media, many people claimed that Allen was the victim of "cancel culture" and that Disney was refusing to work with the actor due to his conservative politics. But that wasn't the case. In fact, as of this writing, Allen and Disney were working together on an upcoming television series based on "The Santa Clause" movies. conservative politics working together Here's a synopsis of the new Disney+ series: synopsis of the new Disney+ series In the Disney+ series, Scott Calvin is on the brink of his 65th birthday and realizing that he cant be Santa forever. Hes starting to lose a step in his Santa duties, and more importantly, hes got a family who could benefit from a life in the normal world, especially his two kids who have grown up at the Pole. With a lot of elves, children, and family to please, Scott sets out to find a suitable replacement Santa while preparing his family for a new adventure in a life south of the pole. While Allen did not voice Buzz Lightyear in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie, there was no evidence that Disney refused him the role, or ended its working relationship with Allen, because of his political beliefs. Rather, the film featured a version of the fictional character that was different from the original "Buzz Lightyear" figure in the "Toy Story" films, and a producer said they "needed to have a different person" playing the 2022 movie's version. Also, Allen was working with Disney on a separate project. Buzz Lightyear Voices (Toy Story). Behind The Voice Actors, https://www.behindthevoiceactors.com/characters/Toy-Story/Buzz-Lightyear/. Accessed 16 June 2022. Weary Lightyear Director Tries Once Again to Explain How Real Lightyear Is or Isnt. The A.V. Club, 16 June 2022, https://www.avclub.com/lightyear-director-angus-maclane-describes-how-real-the-1849068927. Cavacini, Michael. Legendary Pat Fraley Tells All. Michael Cavacini, 1 Nov. 2019, https://michaelcavacini.com/2019/11/01/legendary-pat-fraley-tells-all/. Johnson, Allen. Why Lightyear Director Recast Iconic Role of Buzz with Chris Evans for New Pixar Film. Datebook SF Chronicle, https://datebook.sfchronicle.com/movies-tv/why-lightyear-director-recast-iconic-role-of-buzz-with-chris-evans-for-new-pixar-film. Accessed 16 June 2022. Lightyear Creator Breaks Down Why Tim Allen Wasnt Asked To Return In New Pixar Movie - The Illuminerdi. 15 June 2022, https://www.theilluminerdi.com/2022/06/15/lightyear-why-tim-allen-recast/. Scott, A. O. Lightyear Review: Infinite Buzz. The New York Times, 14 June 2022. NYTimes.com, https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/14/movies/lightyear-review.html. Tim Allen Returns to the Red Suit for The Santa Clause, a Limited Series for Disney+. D23, 14 Jan. 2022, https://d23.com/just-announced-tim-allen-returns-to-the-red-suit-for-the-santa-clause-a-limited-series-for-disney/.

False

In June 2022, many people expressed outrage over the claim that Disney had supposedly "canceled" actor Tim Allen, who voiced the character "Buzz Lightyear" in the original "Toy Story" movies. According to the rumor, the entertainment giant refused to cast Allen in the 2022 "Lightyear" movie due to his conservative political views. Here's how the conservative news outlet "Townhall" framed the issue:While it was true that actor Chris Evans not Allen was voicing Buzz in "Lightyear," Disney had not cut ties with Allen. In fact, Allen and Disney are currently working together on another project, as of this writing. Furthermore, there were several story reasons (not political ones) for a new actor to voice "Buzz Lightyear" in the 2022 movie. Chief among them: "Lightyear" focused on a fictional human character, while the "Toy Story" movies featured a fictional "Buzz Lightyear" toy.Sound a little confusing? In the opening moments of "Lightyear," the premise of the movie is explained like this: "In 1995, Andy got a toy. That toy is from his favorite movie. This is that movie.""Lightyear" producer Galyn Susman explained:In the real world, we can compare this scenario to Batman action figures and Batman movie stars. Actor Robert Pattinson played the caped crusader in the 2022 movie "The Batman," but that doesn't mean he provided the voice for the latest "Batman" toys on store shelves. In fact, while Allen's co-star Tom Hanks voiced the character of "Woody" in the "Toy Story" movies, it was actually Hanks' brother, Jim, who provided the voice of "Woody" for the real-world action figures. Allen provided the voice for some "Buzz Lightyear" toys, but so have a number of other entertainers such as actor Pat Fraley.Fraley said in a 2019 interview:Tim was too busy. He had a show on TV and was doing movies. He had Home Improvement and those Santa Clause movies at the time.As this rumor circulated on social media, many people claimed that Allen was the victim of "cancel culture" and that Disney was refusing to work with the actor due to his conservative politics. But that wasn't the case. In fact, as of this writing, Allen and Disney were working together on an upcoming television series based on "The Santa Clause" movies. Here's a synopsis of the new Disney+ series:

FMD_train_944

Today, for the first time in fifteen years, Master Locks unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.

02/01/2012

President Barack Obama hailed the return of manufacturing jobs that had been shipped overseas during his State of the Union speech on Jan. 24, 2012. The president discussed companies that have brought back production after labor problems in China, economic issues and higher shipping rates added to costs.Obama said: We cant bring every job back thats left our shore. But right now, its getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive.He added: A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in 15 years, Master Locks unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.Master Lock hasnt had this much publicity since it ran those Tough Under FireSuper Bowl adsshowing their product surviving a sharpshooters bullet. Those ads ran for 20 years, starting in the mid-1970s.So whats the latest at the companys huge central city plant?The lock maker, a division of Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc., was founded in Milwaukee in 1921.Fifteen years ago, Master Lock had about 1,154 workers at its Milwaukee plant, 2600 N. 32nd Street, a sprawling facility thats been described as the size of seven football fields. That year, Master Lock announced that it would begin importing locks from China, a move that began a string of large job reductions in Milwaukee.Two years later, the company announced that it would open a lock assembly factory in Nogales, Mexico. Because of the outsourcing and competition from those cheaper locks made elsewhere, employment in the Milwaukee plant fell to about 270 employees in 2003, the company said.The cost advantages of overseas production began to decline in the late 2000s. By the end of 2010, the company said, several dozen jobs were moved back to Milwaukee. Employment grew to 379,news reportssaid.In early 2011, company executives used the full capacity description of production in a Journal Sentinel story about the return of the outsourced jobs. That message returned at a White House meeting in January 2012, and again in the State of the Union address.The White House meeting was a in-sourcing forum. At that event, the presidentsingled outMaster Lock for praise.The company says employment in Milwaukee is now 412. Master Lock still operates factories in China and Mexico.So what does it mean when the company and Obama say that the plant is operating at full capacity? After all, there are nearly 750 fewer people working there than 15 years ago.Without providing specifics or revenue figures, Master Lock said in a written statement that the Milwaukee plant is a far different operation than it was in 1997.The Milwaukee plant is producing parts and components at a much higher volume than in 1997, reflecting our regained market share and Master Lock's overall revenue growth, which is approximately double 1997 revenues, the company said. Moreover, Milwaukee-made production is now being sold directly to Master Lock customers in China, reflecting its new competitiveness.Master Lock said it decided to re-size and convert Milwaukee into a more automated and highly efficient manufacturer of parts and components regardless of final assembly destination.Such lean manufacturing efforts have paid off for many companies, said Nick Hayes, a partner with FiveTwelve Group Ltd., a business research and consulting firm in Milwaukee.Manufacturers can become far more efficient by using automation, high-tech equipment and streamlining the way they move supplies and inventory around a factory, he said.Hayes offered an example of a factory he worked with that adopted lean manufacturing. The company downsized from a 60,000 square foot factory and 100 workers to one that was two-thirds smaller, with half the work force. Production increased 10-fold.The question I would have for Master Lock is how primitive were they before? Hayes said.Consumer demand for the product is another critical factor, he said. And Master Lock indicated that sales had increased.Without providing specifics, Master Lock said it hoped to continue to add jobs in Milwaukee.We plan to invest in the plant this year to add capacity as we in-source more work. We are also investing in training and working with area technical colleges and universities to find and equip skilled workers.Our conclusionObama singled out Master Lock saying the company brought back outsourced jobs and is operating at capacity for the first time in 15 years. Thats the same thing Master Lock executives said more than a year ago, and theyve continued to add jobs and said they would continue to do so. It also tracks with their efforts to attract a more highly skilled work force to run an updated operation.We rate Obamas statement True.

True

President Barack Obama hailed the return of manufacturing jobs that had been shipped overseas during his State of the Union speech on Jan. 24, 2012. The president discussed companies that have brought back production after labor problems in China, economic issues and higher shipping rates added to costs.Obama said: We cant bring every job back thats left our shore. But right now, its getting more expensive to do business in places like China. Meanwhile, America is more productive.He added: A few weeks ago, the CEO of Master Lock told me that it now makes business sense for him to bring jobs back home. Today, for the first time in 15 years, Master Locks unionized plant in Milwaukee is running at full capacity.Master Lock hasnt had this much publicity since it ran those Tough Under FireSuper Bowl adsshowing their product surviving a sharpshooters bullet. Those ads ran for 20 years, starting in the mid-1970s.So whats the latest at the companys huge central city plant?The lock maker, a division of Fortune Brands Home & Security, Inc., was founded in Milwaukee in 1921.Fifteen years ago, Master Lock had about 1,154 workers at its Milwaukee plant, 2600 N. 32nd Street, a sprawling facility thats been described as the size of seven football fields. That year, Master Lock announced that it would begin importing locks from China, a move that began a string of large job reductions in Milwaukee.Two years later, the company announced that it would open a lock assembly factory in Nogales, Mexico. Because of the outsourcing and competition from those cheaper locks made elsewhere, employment in the Milwaukee plant fell to about 270 employees in 2003, the company said.The cost advantages of overseas production began to decline in the late 2000s. By the end of 2010, the company said, several dozen jobs were moved back to Milwaukee. Employment grew to 379,news reportssaid.In early 2011, company executives used the full capacity description of production in a Journal Sentinel story about the return of the outsourced jobs. That message returned at a White House meeting in January 2012, and again in the State of the Union address.The White House meeting was a in-sourcing forum. At that event, the presidentsingled outMaster Lock for praise.The company says employment in Milwaukee is now 412. Master Lock still operates factories in China and Mexico.So what does it mean when the company and Obama say that the plant is operating at full capacity? After all, there are nearly 750 fewer people working there than 15 years ago.Without providing specifics or revenue figures, Master Lock said in a written statement that the Milwaukee plant is a far different operation than it was in 1997.The Milwaukee plant is producing parts and components at a much higher volume than in 1997, reflecting our regained market share and Master Lock's overall revenue growth, which is approximately double 1997 revenues, the company said. Moreover, Milwaukee-made production is now being sold directly to Master Lock customers in China, reflecting its new competitiveness.Master Lock said it decided to re-size and convert Milwaukee into a more automated and highly efficient manufacturer of parts and components regardless of final assembly destination.Such lean manufacturing efforts have paid off for many companies, said Nick Hayes, a partner with FiveTwelve Group Ltd., a business research and consulting firm in Milwaukee.Manufacturers can become far more efficient by using automation, high-tech equipment and streamlining the way they move supplies and inventory around a factory, he said.Hayes offered an example of a factory he worked with that adopted lean manufacturing. The company downsized from a 60,000 square foot factory and 100 workers to one that was two-thirds smaller, with half the work force. Production increased 10-fold.The question I would have for Master Lock is how primitive were they before? Hayes said.Consumer demand for the product is another critical factor, he said. And Master Lock indicated that sales had increased.Without providing specifics, Master Lock said it hoped to continue to add jobs in Milwaukee.We plan to invest in the plant this year to add capacity as we in-source more work. We are also investing in training and working with area technical colleges and universities to find and equip skilled workers.Our conclusionObama singled out Master Lock saying the company brought back outsourced jobs and is operating at capacity for the first time in 15 years. Thats the same thing Master Lock executives said more than a year ago, and theyve continued to add jobs and said they would continue to do so. It also tracks with their efforts to attract a more highly skilled work force to run an updated operation.We rate Obamas statement True.

FMD_train_315

Did President Trump Reverse an Insecticide Ban After Receiving $1 Million from Dow Chemicals?

11/27/2017

The insecticide chlorpyrifos, sold under the brand names Lorsban, Dursban, and others, has been the subject of regulatory battles for decades. It was first introduced as a pesticide in 1965 and remains the most commonly applied pesticide in the United States. In 1996, the Clinton administration signed into law the Food Quality Protection Act, which mandated regular scientific reviews and safety evaluations of existing pesticides based on children's health safety benchmarks. One of the actions resulting from this review was a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos for nearly all residential and indoor uses. This action followed the most extensive scientific review of the potential hazards from a pesticide ever conducted. The action, the result of an agreement with the manufacturers, will significantly minimize potential health risks from exposure to Dursban, also called chlorpyrifos, for all Americans, especially children. Following this ruling, the EPA additionally ruled that chlorpyrifos would remain classified as safe for use in other agricultural and industrial settings. This latter ruling resulted in a September 2007 petition to the EPA filed by the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which jointly requested that the agency ban the pesticide or issue final rulings on their acceptable levels (legally termed tolerances) in food. In September 2015, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals mandated that the EPA respond to this petition by either banning the chemical completely or issuing final rulings on tolerances of the chemical's residue on food products by October 31, 2015. Following this court order, the EPA conducted a lengthy review and delivered a proposal on November 6, 2015, which suggested, as requested by the petition, that all currently published tolerances regarding chlorpyrifos residue on food should be revoked. The EPA proposed to revoke all tolerances for residues of the insecticide chlorpyrifos, including tolerances for residues of chlorpyrifos on specific food commodities, on all food commodities treated in food handling and food service establishments in accordance with prescribed conditions, and on specific commodities when used under regional registrations. The agency proposed to revoke all of these tolerances because it cannot, at this time, determine that aggregate exposure to residues of chlorpyrifos, including all anticipated dietary exposures and all other non-occupational exposures for which there is reliable information, is safe. In March 2017, before the EPA's proposal was implemented, Scott Pruitt, the new EPA administrator under President Donald Trump, reversed course and argued that the previous administration's scientific rationale was dubious, denying the petition. In October 2015, under the previous administration, the EPA proposed to revoke all food residue tolerances for chlorpyrifos, an active ingredient in insecticides. This proposal was issued in response to a petition from the Natural Resources Defense Council and Pesticide Action Network North America. The October 2015 proposal largely relied on certain epidemiological study outcomes, whose application is novel and uncertain, to reach its conclusions. The decision to deny the petition faced renewed scrutiny because the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, had been appointed by Trump to a White House manufacturing working group, and his company subsequently donated $1 million to Donald Trump's inauguration fund. Liveris was also scrutinized over reports that he met with Pruitt prior to his announcement reversing the ban. On November 19, 2017, using text from a viral Chelsea Handler tweet, the progressive Facebook page "Really American" launched a petition with a call to action. We explore each component of this memetic claim: Chlorpyrifos was invented by the Nazis as a nerve agent. False. Chlorpyrifos is a specific chemical that belongs to a broader class of chemicals called organophosphates. While the Nazis were at the forefront of developing this broader class as both weapons and insecticides, they cannot be credited with inventing chlorpyrifos specifically. In the 1930s, a German researcher named Gerhard Schrader at the German chemical producer IG Farben (infamous for producing the gas most commonly employed at Nazi death camps) discovered that organophosphates interact with cholinesterase, an enzyme that aids in the production of an important neurotransmitter in animals. Originally, this effect was explored as a way to produce an insecticide, but one of Schrader's formulations, named Preparation 9/91, ended up being extremely toxic to humans. Schrader himself required hospitalization as a result of his own interaction with it. This discovery was reported to Nazi authorities, who mandated that all German researchers report any scientific development that could have military applications to the regime. Schrader's discovery led to the development and production of some of the world's most infamous organophosphate nerve gases, including Tabun and Sarin. Other countries, including Britain and the United States, also began research into organophosphates during WWII as weapons. After the war ended, research resumed into organophosphate use as an insecticide. Chlorpyrifos, a specific formulation of an organophosphate, is included as one of many chemicals assigned to the Dow Chemical Company in a 1963 patent, which lists United States-based researcher Raymond Rigterink as the inventor. The only connection that chlorpyrifos has to the Nazi regime is its foundational work on the biological effects of organophosphates that researchers performed prior to and during WWII. Many nations built on this work after the war. Chlorpyrifos causes brain damage. Unproven, but likely. That organophosphates can be toxic to humans is nothing new. The idea in developing such a chemical for use as an insecticide is to engineer an organophosphate that is below the threshold for affecting the human nervous system (via its effect on cholinesterase, something scientifically referred to as AChE inhibition) but is still toxic to insects. From a scientific standpoint, the main controversy surrounds the potential residual effects that chlorpyrifos may have on the neurological development of fetuses and young children, which some studies have documented even at levels well below what is currently considered acceptable. In their 2016 decision to ban all tolerances for the chemical on food, the Environmental Protection Agency stated: In summary, the EPA's assessment is that the [Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health, CCCEH] study, with supporting results from the other two U.S. cohort studies and the seven additional epidemiological studies reviewed in 2015, provides sufficient evidence that there are neurodevelopmental effects occurring at chlorpyrifos exposure levels below that required for AChE inhibition. The primary study cited by the EPA was conducted by the Columbia Center for Children's Environmental Health and published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012. This study compared fetal exposure to chlorpyrifos (based on sampling of blood in the mother's umbilical cord) to differences in brain development. We investigated associations between [chlorpyrifos, CPF] exposure and brain morphology using magnetic resonance imaging in 40 children, aged 5.9 to 11.2 years, selected from a nonclinical, representative community-based cohort. Twenty high-exposure children (upper tertile of CPF concentrations in umbilical cord blood) were compared with 20 low-exposure children on cortical surface features. In a press release about this study, CCCEH said: Even low to moderate levels of exposure to the insecticide chlorpyrifos during pregnancy may lead to long-term, potentially irreversible changes in the brain structure of the child. Changes were visible across the surface of the brain, with abnormal enlargement of some areas and thinning in others. The disturbances in brain structure are consistent with the IQ deficits previously reported in the children with high exposure levels of CPF, suggesting a link between prenatal exposure to CPF and deficits in IQ and working memory at age 7. Notably, the brain abnormalities appeared to occur at exposure levels below the current EPA threshold for toxicity, which is based on exposures high enough to inhibit the action of the key neurological enzyme cholinesterase. The present findings suggest that the mechanism underlying structural changes in the brain may involve other pathways. There have been several large-scale studies that show a similar association between exposure to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates and neurological problems, and there have been several studies proposing hypotheses about why such an association exists, but there lacks a rigorous consensus on the latter point. The Pruitt EPA, in essence, has used this uncertainty to defer a decision on its neurological effects to a later review date. Following a review of comments on both the November 2015 proposal and the November 2016 notice of data availability, the EPA concluded that, despite several years of study, the science addressing neurodevelopmental effects remains unresolved and that further evaluation of the science during the remaining time for completion of registration review is warranted to achieve greater certainty as to whether the potential exists for adverse neurodevelopmental effects to occur from current human exposures to chlorpyrifos. The EPA has therefore concluded that it will not complete the human health portion of the registration review or any associated tolerance revocation of chlorpyrifos without first attempting to come to a clearer scientific resolution on those issues. As noted, Congress has provided that the EPA must complete registration review by October 1, 2022. Because the Ninth Circuit's August 12, 2016 order has made clear, however, that further extensions to the March 31, 2017 deadline for responding to the petition would not be granted, the EPA is today also denying all remaining petition claims. Pruitt highlighted specific methodological problems and uncertainties scientists raised during their 2016 review but importantly neglected to mention that at the time of the panel's meeting, they still concluded that the ban was necessary, even if the mechanistic aspects of chlorpyrifos danger are not yet settled. Jim Jones, the former head of the EPA chemical safety unit, contended in an interview with the New York Times that the science behind the neurological risks of chlorpyrifos is not questioned. They are ignoring the science that is pretty solid, Mr. Jones said, adding that he believed the ruling would put farm workers and exposed children at unnecessary risk. Speaking of the EPA's reversal, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement suggesting that Pruitt's decision was not based on science, arguing an ethical responsibility to use science for the good of humanity. Science should be used to prevent harm and to protect lives. The decision to put the agenda of a corporation over the lives and well-being of Americans is an egregious failure of our government to use strong, independent science to protect public health and safety. Chlorpyrifos was supposed to be banned in 2017, but Trump is now allowing it. In a broad sense, the "blame" for this chlorpyrifos ban reversal belongs only indirectly to Trump himself. He did, however, appoint anti-regulation crusader Scott Pruitt as administrator of the EPA, who subsequently decided to exercise his executive authority to reject the chlorpyrifos petition and reverse the previous EPA's ban, which is a power afforded to Pruitt through the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. Under section 408(d)(4) of the FFDCA, the EPA is authorized to respond to a section 408(d) petition to revoke tolerance either by issuing a final rule revoking the tolerances, issuing a proposed rule, or issuing an order denying the petition. If Pruitt had not exercised this authority, the EPA had a court-mandated deadline to make a ruling on the matter by March 31, 2017. Prior to this deadline, Pruitt issued his own ruling rejecting the work done by previous advisory boards. Had a different administrator been in charge, that call may have been very different. As a result of Trump and Pruitt's actions, chlorpyrifos will continue to be allowed to be sprayed on food items, but it should be noted that this represents no change in current policy; it merely blocks what would likely have been the implementation of a change that would have otherwise taken effect in March 2017. Dow Chemicals gave President Trump $1 million for his inauguration. Dow Chemicals donated one million dollars to Trump's inaugural committee, a donation described by political news site TheHill.com as among Trump's largest. Dow also donated $250,000 to the 2005 George W. Bush inaugural committee (whose administration also sought to limit regulation on chlorpyrifos), but not to either the 2009 or 2013 Obama inaugural funds. Responding to an April 2017 report alleging that Dow attempted to kill efforts to study the negative effects of chlorpyrifos, Dow contended that the gift was legal and not part of an influence campaign.

NEI

The insecticide chlorpyrifos, sold under the brand names Lorsban, Dursban, and others, has been the subject of regulatory battles for decades. It was first introduced as a pesticide in 1965, and it remains the most commonly applied pesticide in the United States. In 1996, the Clinton administration signed into law the Food Quality Protection Act, which mandated regular scientific reviews and safety evaluations of existing pesticides based on childrens health safety benchmarks. One of the actions resulting from this review was a 2000 ban on chlorpyrifos for nearly all residential and indoor uses:Following this ruling, the EPA additionally ruled that chlorpyrifos would remain classified as safe for use in other agricultural and industrial settings. This latter ruling resulted in a September 2007 petition to the EPA filed by the Pesticide Action Network of North America and the Natural Resources Defense Council, both of which jointly requested that the agency ban the pesticide or issue final rulings on their acceptable levels (legally termed tolerances) in food. In September 2015, the Ninth Circuit court of appeals mandated that the EPA respond to this petition by either banning the chemical completely or issuing final rulings on tolerances of the chemicals residue on food products by October 31, 2015.Following this court order, the EPA conducted a lengthy review and delivered a proposal on 6 November 2015, which suggested as requested by the petition that all currently published tolerances regarding chlorpyrifos residue on food should be revoked:In March 2017, before the EPAs proposal was implemented, Scott Pruitt the new EPA administrator under President Donald Trump reversed course and argued the previous administrations scientific rationale was dubious, denying the petition:The decision to deny the petition faced renewed scrutiny because the CEO of Dow Chemical, Andrew Liveris, had been appointed by Trump to a White House manufacturing working group, and his company subsequently donated $1 million to Donald Trumps inauguration fund. Liveris also was scrutinized over reports that he met with Pruitt prior to his announcement reversing the ban. On 19 November 2017, using text from a viral Chelsea Handler tweet, the progressive Facebook Page "Really American" launched a petition with a call to action:In the 1930s, a German researcher named Gerhard Schrader at German chemical producer IG Farben (infamous for producing the gas most commonly employed at Nazi death camps) discovered that organophosphates interact with cholinesterase, an enzyme that aids in the production of an important neurotransmitter in animals.Originally this effect was explored as a way to produce an insecticide, but one of Schrader's formulations, named Preparation 9/91, ended up being extremely toxic to humans. Schrader himself required hospitalization as a result of his own interaction with it. This discovery was reported to Nazi authorities, who mandated that all German researchers report any scientific development that could have military applications to the regime.Shraders discovery led to the discovery and production of some of the worlds most infamous organophosphate nerve gases, including Tabun and Sarin gases. Other countries, including Britain and the United States, also began research into organophosphates during WWII as weapons. After the war ended, research resumed into organophosphate use as an insecticide.Chlorpyrifos, a specific formulation of an organophosphate, is included as one of many chemicals assigned to the Dow Chemical company in a 1963 patent which lists United States-based researcher Raymond Rigterink as the inventor. The only connection that chlorpyrifos has to the Nazi regime is its foundational work on the biological effects of organophosphates that researchers performed prior to, and during, WWII. Many nations built on this work after the war.Unproven, but likely. That organophosphates can be toxic to humans is nothing new. The idea, in developing such a chemical for use an insecticide, is to engineer an organophosphate that is below the threshold for affecting the human nervous system (via its effect on cholinesterase, something scientifically referred to as AChE inhibition) but is still toxic to insects.The primary study cited by the EPA was conducted by the Columbia Center for Childrens Environmental Health and published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2012. This study compared fetal exposure to chlorpyrifos (based on sampling of blood in the mother's umbilical cord) to differences in brain development: In a press release this study, CCCEH said:Changes were visible across the surface of the brain, with abnormal enlargement of some areas and thinning in others. The disturbances in brain structure are consistent with the IQ deficits previously reported in the children with high exposure levels of [...] CPF, suggesting a link between prenatal exposure to CPF and deficits in IQ and working memory at age 7.There have been several large-scale studies that show a similar association between exposure to chlorpyrifos and other organophosphates to neurological problems, and there have been several studies proposing hypotheses about why such an association exists, but there lacks a rigorous consensus on the later point. The Pruitt EPA, in essence, has used this uncertainty to punt a decision on its neurological effects to a later review date:Pruitt highlighted specific methodological problems and uncertainties scientists raised during their 2016 review, but importantly neglected to mention that at the time of the panels meeting, they still concluded that the ban was necessary even if the mechanistic aspects of chlorpyrifos danger are not yet settled. Jim Jones, the former head of the EPA chemical safety unit, contended in an interview with the New York Times that the science behind the neurological risks of chlorpyrifos is not questioned: Speaking of the EPAs reversal, the Union of Concerned Scientists issued a statement suggesting that Pruitts decision was not based on science, arguing an ethical responsibility to use science for the good of humanity:True. In a broad sense, the "blame" for this chlorpyrifos ban reversal belongs only indirectly to Trump himself. He did, however, appoint anti-regulation crusader Scott Pruitt as administrator of the EPA, who subsequently decided to exercise his executive authority to reject the chlorpyrifos petition and reverse the previous EPAs ban, which is a power afforded to Pruitt through the United States Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act:If Pruitt had not exercised this authority, the EPA had a court-mandated deadline to make a ruling on the matter by 31 March 2017. Prior to this deadline, Pruitt issued his own ruling rejecting the work done by previous advisory boards. Had a different administrator been in charge, that call may have been very different.True. Dow Chemicals donated one million dollars to Trumps inaugural committee, a donation described by political news site TheHill.com as among Trumps largest. Dow also donated $250,000 to the 2005 George W. Bush inaugural committee (whose administration also sought to limit regulation on chlorpyrifos), but not to either the 2009 or 2013 Obama inaugural funds.Responding to an April 2017 report alleging that Dow attempted to kill efforts to study the negative effects of chlorpyrifos, Dow contended that the gift was legal and not part of an influence campaign:Although it is clear that Dow Chemicals actively lobbied against a chlorpyrifos ban, we cannot rule on claims that their $1 million donation influenced Trump or Pruitt to change their view on the issue.

FMD_train_1186

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

12/20/2010

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

False

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

FMD_train_499

Last year the IRS audited Americans earning less than $25,000 a year at five times the rate of other groups.

08/25/2022

The Inflation Reduction Act, signed into law Aug. 16, 2022, by President Joe Biden, has many provisions aiming to lower drug costs, address the climate crisis, reduce the deficit, and ask large corporations to pay a greater share of taxes. But one aspect of the Democratic plan has sparked some of the biggest headlines: $80 billion over 10 years to beef up the Internal Revenue Service. Heres a sample of unfounded and debunked claims: A Delta Force seized a shipment of weapons headed to the IRS, a TikTok video claimed. PolitiFact National rated thisPants on Fire. The government is arming up the IRS because Joe Biden is raising taxes and disarming Americans, U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said. PolitiFact National rated thisFalse. Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy insisted. PolitiFact National rated thisMostly False. In Wisconsin, meanwhile, Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson weighed in Aug. 7, 2022, the day the Senate approved the measure, with anews releaseciting a litany of grievances with the IRS and this claim: Last year, the IRS audited Americans earning less than $25,000 a year at five times the rate of other groups. According to Democrats and the White House, the Inflation Reduction Act money for the IRS is meant to improve tax compliance enforcement of the wealthiest in the nation. So, Johnsons claim caught our attention. Is he right? Two sides point to the same study to make their points When asked for backup, Johnson spokesperson Alexa Henning pointed to an April 13, 2022, letter from U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., a member of the Senate Finance Committee, and U.S. Rep. Judy Chu, D-Calif., a member of the House Ways and Means Committee. The letter was sent to Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen and Internal Revenue Service Commissioner Charles Rettig. Theletter from two prominent Democrats, no less accuses the IRS of targeting low-income Americans for tax audits. After noting the lawmakers are working to secure more money to expand audits, the letter says: The most vulnerable taxpayers should not shoulder the burden of insufficient IRS enforcement funding simply because they require fewer resources to audit. Keep those thoughts in mind as we move ahead. At the core of the letter and therefore of Johnsons claim is an analysis of tax data from the 2021 fiscal year by Syracuse Universitys Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), a nonpartisan, nonprofit data research center. Here is what the analysis found: Whats behind this? The March 8, 2022,TRAC analysissays the IRS accomplished over 650 thousand audits last year by jacking up its already high reliance on correspondence audits essentially a letter from the IRS asking for documentation on a specific line item on a return. All but 100,000 of the 659,000 audits were conducted with these letters through the mail. Indeed, in the 2021 fiscal year, that sort of audit accounted for 85% of all audits, up from about 80% in the previous two years. The analysis noted a similar phenomenon occurred more than 20 years ago, amid a cutback in IRS staff. In other words, with less staff, the most simple audits continue, while other more complex audits fall off. A limitation in the IRS ability to audit millionaires is the availability of IRS revenue agents, a particular class of investigators. Only this class of auditors, given sufficient training and experience, are qualified to examine complex tax returns the types of returns typically filed by high-income individuals and large-scale businesses, the analysis states. When asked about Johnsons claim, IRS media relations chief Karen A. Connelly referred PolitiFact Wisconsin to the March 17, 2022,congressional testimonyfrom Rettig. In it, Rettig called the TRAC findings absolutely 100% false and said he was tired of having to deal with this issue. We audit high-income taxpayers more than any other category in the Internal Revenue Service, Rettig said. Taxpayers reflecting over $10 million of income are audited at a rate exceeding 7%. Taxpayers at the $25,000 level, which is primarily the earned income taxpayer would be the only people we would look at, are audited at 1.1%. According to TRAC, Rettig was referring to numbers from 2016. They argue that makes their own numbers more up to date. But that misses an important point. The IRS does not have to initiate audits in the same year returns are filed. So, as years pass, and more audits are started, the picture changes. Under the IRSs definition of the audit rate, the 2016 figure was the most current complete data, said Janet Holtzblatt, a senior fellow at the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. Holtzblatt said audits of 2016 tax returns would have begun, at the earliest, in 2017. So at the time of the preparation of the 2020 Data Book, the audit data for 2016 returns were the most recent year outside the statute of limitations for audits. So, its the total number of audits possible for 2016 returns. Data for a later year would not be complete because the IRS could still be opening up audits for that year. That is, by the IRS definition, the 2019 audit rate would not reflect all the audits that would eventually be done on 2019 tax returns. So, all of that leaves us in an interesting spot. In arguing against a bill that provides more money to do more audits of high-income individuals, Johnson cites the same statistics as those calling for the increased spending. Fair enough. And those numbers do refer to last year. But, under the audit process, they are not complete. The numbers will only rise and the proportions could change as more audits are begun and completed. That means its not as simple as Johnson suggests. Johnson said last year, the IRS audited Americans earning less than $25,000 a year at five times the rate of other groups. That, well, tracks with the TRAC data and lawmakers on the other side of the issue have cited the same information in making their case for the bill. But both sides are missing a key point: Audits are not all begun instantly, so at best the figures cited are preliminary ones. They will change, and the proportion may well shift, as time passes and more audits are started and completed. In other words, the statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Thats our definition for Mostly True.

True

A Delta Force seized a shipment of weapons headed to the IRS, a TikTok video claimed. PolitiFact National rated thisPants on Fire.The government is arming up the IRS because Joe Biden is raising taxes and disarming Americans, U.S. Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said. PolitiFact National rated thisFalse.Democrats' new army of 87,000 IRS agents will be coming for you with 710,000 new audits for Americans who earn less than $75k, House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy insisted. PolitiFact National rated thisMostly False.In Wisconsin, meanwhile, Republican U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson weighed in Aug. 7, 2022, the day the Senate approved the measure, with anews releaseciting a litany of grievances with the IRS and this claim: Last year, the IRS audited Americans earning less than $25,000 a year at five times the rate of other groups.Theletter from two prominent Democrats, no less accuses the IRS of targeting low-income Americans for tax audits.The March 8, 2022,TRAC analysissays the IRS accomplished over 650 thousand audits last year by jacking up its already high reliance on correspondence audits essentially a letter from the IRS asking for documentation on a specific line item on a return. All but 100,000 of the 659,000 audits were conducted with these letters through the mail.When asked about Johnsons claim, IRS media relations chief Karen A. Connelly referred PolitiFact Wisconsin to the March 17, 2022,congressional testimonyfrom Rettig. In it, Rettig called the TRAC findings absolutely 100% false and said he was tired of having to deal with this issue.

FMD_train_575

Did a Banned Federal Study Show That Refugees Bring in More in Government Revenues Than They Cost?

12/12/2018

One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits. lowering Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million. breakdown These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position: A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on! A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that: document The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion. All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government: The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population: The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable. However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate: This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy. John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs. The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees. The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.) denied The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document. Blitzer, Jonathan. "How Stephen Miller Single-Handedly Got the U.S. to Accept Fewer Refugees." The New Yorker. 13 October 2017. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld. "Trump to Cap Refugees Allowed into U.S. at 30,000, a Record Low." The New York Times. 17 September 2018. Davis, Julie Hirschfeld and Somini Sengupta. "Trump Administration Rejects Study Showing Positive Impact of Refugees." The New York Times. 18 September 2017. Phillips, Amber. "Here's How Much the United States Spends on Refugees." The Washington Post. 20 November 2015. The New York Times. "Rejected Report Shows Revenue Brought in by Refugees." 19 September 2017.

True

One of the arguments made by the Trump administration for lowering the cap on the number of refugees allowed into the United States is that the costs of refugee resettlement outweigh its benefits.Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.These cost estimates rarely attempt to take into account any economic benefits refugees might provide to the countries that take them in. According to a Facebook meme making the rounds since mid-2018, just such an analysis was undertaken by the Trump administration, but the results were suppressed because they undercut the official position:A recently leaked federal study found that refugees to America brought in $63 billion in government revenues than they cost in the last 10 years. Trump chief policy adviser Stephen Miller banned the release of the study, because it contradicts his claim that refugees are too costly. Pass it on!A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The internal study, which was completed in late July but never publicly released, found that refugees contributed an estimated $269.1 billion in revenues to all levels of government between 2005 and 2014 through the payment of federal, state and local taxes. Overall, this report estimated that the net fiscal impact of refugees was positive over the 10-year period, at $63 billion.All in all, the report said, the net fiscal impact of refugees over the 10-year period was positive, not negative, to the tune of $63 billion at all levels of government:The study concluded that refugees on average had a net fiscal impact "comparable" to that of the general population:The per capita annual net fiscal benefit was $2,205 for refugees and $1,848 for the general U.S. population, a difference not likely to be significant given margins of error and other limitations of this study. Expenditures for the general U.S. population were on average higher than expenditures for refugees, while revenues were more comparable.However, none of this information was contained in the final report delivered to the President, the Times reported, noting that some of the refugee program's proponents believed the results of the study were "suppressed" internally. Administration officials characterized those results as illegitimate:This leak was delivered by someone with an ideological agenda, not someone looking at hard data, said Raj Shah, a White House spokesman. The actual report pursuant to the presidential memorandum shows that refugees with few skills coming from war-torn countries take more government benefits from the Department of Health and Human Services than the average population, and are not a net benefit to the U.S. economy.John Graham, the acting assistant secretary for planning and evaluation at the health department, said: We do not comment on allegedly leaked documents and that no report had been finalized. He noted that Mr. Trumps memorandum seeks an analysis related to the cost of refugee programs. Therefore, the only analysis in the scope of H.H.S.s response to the memo would be on refugee-related expenditures from data within H.H.S. programs.The three-page report the agency ultimately submitted, dated Sept. 5, does just that, using government data to compare the costs of refugees to Americans and making no mention of revenues contributed by refugees.The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)The Facebook meme is largely accurate, then, although it somewhat mischaracterizes what became of the original draft report. It wasn't "banned" from release, in that it doesn't appear the report was ever intended to be made public. It was allegedly suppressed, however, in that it never reached President Trump's desk, and all discussion of the fiscal benefits of admitting refugees into the United States was excised from the final document.Estimates vary on the total annual cost of processing and resettling refugees in the U.S., but a rough breakdown by the National Conference of State Legislatures put the total expenditures for accepting approximately 70,000 refugees in 2014 at $582 million.A leaked document fitting that description was indeed published by the New York Times in September 2017. It was an early draft of a report by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) detailing, at the president's request, the estimated long-term costs of the United States Refugee Admissions Program. The Times noted that:The Times also said that according to White House sources, Trump adviser Stephen Miller, who is reputed to be the chief architect of the administration's immigration policies, "personally intervened" to ensure that only the costs of admitting refugees, and not the fiscal benefits thereof, were enumerated in the final report. (According to the New Yorker, the White House denied that Miller was involved in producing the report.)

FMD_train_986

IRS Prepaid or Wire Transfer Fraud

03/26/2014

Scam: The IRS contacts taxpayers by phone to demand that overdue taxes be settled via prepaid debit card or wire transfers. Origins: In March 2014, the IRS reported con artistsimpersonating their agents had stolen more than $1 million from thousands of people across the U.S. via a fraud perpetrated by telephone. The agency has called it "the largest scam of its kind" it has seen. In it, more than 20,000 people from nearly every state were successfully defrauded by fake tax agents who told victims they owed taxes and demanded payment by prepaid debit card or wire transfer. Those masquerading as IRS agents further informed their targets that if they refused to comply with their demands for immediate payment they could be arrested, deported, or lose their business or driver's licenses. Reports of the scam, which has been running since August 2013, continue to increase. The calls are made to look as if they originate with the IRS, with that agency's name appearing on the caller IDs of intended targets' phones. Often those conducting the fraud know the last four digits of their targets' Social Security numbers. Some of the attempts to defraud also follow up with false IRS emails and phone calls in which the con artists pretend to represent the police or motor vehicles officials. Per the IRS's description of this fraud: IRS's description Scammers use fake names and IRS badge numbers. They generally use common names and surnames to identify themselves. Scammers may be able to recite the last four digits of a victims Social Security Number. Scammers spoof the IRS toll-free number on caller ID to make it appear that its the IRS calling. Scammers sometimes send bogus IRS emails to some victims to support their bogus calls. Victims hear background noise of other calls being conducted to mimic a call site. After threatening victims with jail time or drivers license revocation, scammers hang up and others soon call back pretending to be from the local police or DMV, and the caller ID supports their claim. As a rule, the IRS contacts those who owe on their taxes first by mail or with personal visits from field agents. Real IRS agents never insist on payment by debit card or wire transfer. They also don't ask for credit card numbers over the phone. Says Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration Russell George, "If someone unexpectedly calls claiming to be from the IRS and uses threatening language if you don't pay immediately, that is a sign that it really isn't the IRS calling." The IRS advises: If you get a phone call from someone claiming to be from the IRS, heres what you should do: If you know you owe taxes or you think you might owe taxes, call the IRS at 1.800.829.1040. The IRS employees at that line can help you with a payment issue if there really is such an issue. If you know you dont owe taxes or have no reason to think that you owe any taxes (for example, youve never received a bill or the caller made some bogus threats as described above), then call and report the incident to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration at 1.800.366.4484. If youve been targeted by this scam, you should also contact the Federal Trade Commission and use their FTC Complaint Assistant at FTC.gov. Please add "IRS Telephone Scam" to the comments of your complaint. Last updated: 20 February 2015 Norman, Jim. "Authorities Warn of IRS Phone Scam." The Record. 21 March 2014 (p. A5). Richter, Ed. "IRS scam continues to grow." The Journal-News. 23 March 2014.

NEI

Per the IRS's description of this fraud:

FMD_train_18

Did Trump create 11.6 million jobs in the U.S. economy amid the pandemic?

10/12/2020

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to circulate. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris in a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to credit his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that helped rebound the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In particular, Pence stated that the U.S. workforce added millions of jobs since the early days of the outbreak because of Trump's fiscal and regulatory policies. He said, "We're going through a pandemic that lost 22 million jobs at the height; we've already added back 11.6 million jobs because we had a president who cut taxes, rolled back regulation, unleashed American energy, and fought for free and fair trade. [...] We literally have spared no expense to help the American people and the American worker through this." In other words, he claimed the Trump administration spearheaded a variety of initiatives that added 11.6 million jobs in the summer and fall of 2020, regaining nearly half of the roughly 22 million jobs lost at the start of the pandemic. The comment echoed multiple statements by Trump, in which he, too, attempted to praise the administration's successful balance of public health and economic interests. "Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safely return to work and school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May." To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed or work for farms or private households. When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number typically referred to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls—661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020. We obtained monthly nonfarm payroll data, which showed: According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million fewer jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million fewer jobs than the month prior—the steepest decline since the Great Depression. While Pence did not provide an explanation for his labor statistics at the debate, we assumed he was referencing the sum of job losses in March and April, showing employers cut about 22 million jobs during those two months, per the BLS data. After that, the country started a slow, steady recovery. The data show the following increases in job totals, all approximations, on a month-by-month basis: (We should note here that the monthly employment figures for August and September 2020 were both preliminary and subject to revision as of this writing.) Looking at the data, yes, about 11.4 million jobs were added to the U.S. economy between May and September, and the Trump administration's comments about the economy showing significant job growth since the early weeks of the pandemic were true at face value. However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay-at-home order," and New York City closed all non-essential businesses—both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss. Then, over the weeks, employers developed plans for operating under public health officials' recommendations to curb the spread of COVID-19 and, as a result, were able to bring back workers who had been furloughed or reopen after a temporary shutdown. Those trends significantly impacted job growth in the U.S., not Trump. Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan—which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act—helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus package's direct payments to Americans who earned $75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after the initial shock to their profits earlier in the year. All of that said, no evidence showed that the Trump administration enacted policies—whether related to taxes or trade—that "added back" the jobs; rather, economic trends shifted from the early days of the outbreak during mass furloughs and business closures. Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy—especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs—regardless of whether they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or in comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trump's inauguration: "The reality is that presidents have far less control over the economy than you might imagine. Presidential economic records are highly dependent on the dumb luck of where the nation is in the economic cycle. And the White House has no control over the demographic and technological forces that influence the economy." Additionally, the White House had little influence on how businesses quickly adapted to recommendations by public health officials to safely operate during the pandemic. For those reasons, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth and falsehoods. It was true that the country added back about half of the jobs lost during the early months of the pandemic, though it was a false misinterpretation of economic conditions to tie that job growth to Trump policies or to claim that he "cut taxes, rolled back regulation, unleashed American energy, and fought for free and fair trade," as Pence alleged, and that those moves directly added jobs. Here's video footage of Pence making the claim on the vice presidential debate stage, courtesy of C-SPAN: https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4913299/user-clip-vp-pence-jobs-claim. Factba.se. "Press Conference: Donald Trump Holds A Coronavirus Pandemic Briefing In Bedminster - August 7, 2020." Accessed 9 October 2020. U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. "BLS Data Viewer." 9 October 2020. Reuters staff. "Timeline: How the Global Coronavirus Pandemic Unfolded." Accessed 12 October 2020.

NEI

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here.Facing Democratic rival U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris for a debate in October 2020, Vice President Mike Pence attempted to give credit to his boss, President Donald Trump, for developing policies that rebounded the economy after unprecedented losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic."Our strategy to kill the China virus has focused on protecting those at greatest risk while allowing younger and healthy Americans to safety return to work and safely return to school," he said in August. "We added 1.8 million new jobs in July, exceeding predictions for the third month in a row, and adding a total of over 9.3 million jobs since May."To determine the legitimacy of such assertions, we referred to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) "seasonally adjusted nonfarm payroll," which is the standard measurement for determining how U.S. wage and salary jobs change over time. The payroll data are compiled monthly via a survey of about 145,000 businesses and government agencies across the country, excluding people who are self-employed, or work for farms or private households.When a news story stated that, for instance, the economy added "661,000 new workers," that number was typically a reference to the month-to-month change in nonfarm payrolls 661,000 more jobs were added in September compared to August 2020.According to our analysis of the month-by-month statistics, the economy tallied almost 1.4 million less jobs in March compared to February. Then, the recession deepened, and April recorded 20.8 million less jobs than the month prior the steepest decline since the Great Depression.However, that upward trend had little to do with the White House and everything to do with how businesses on a grand scale adapted to new rules on social distancing to curb the spread of the deadly virus. In March, for instance, California issued the first statewide "stay at home order" and New York City closed all non-essential businesses both decisions that contributed to April's historic job loss.Additionally, a Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loan which was developed by Congress, not the White House, via the March Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act helped some small businesses bring back lost positions or keep workers who would otherwise have been laid off. That stimulus packages direct payments to Americans who earned 75,000 annually or less (or families that made up to $150,000 annually) may have also driven spending in the summer months and, consequently, kept some employers afloat after initial shock to their profits earlier in the year.Here's the bottom line: Presidential administrations often exaggerate their influence on the economy especially when employment is showing somewhat positive signs no matter if they're leading the country during a crisis like the COVID-19 outbreak or comparatively normal times. As Neil Irwin wrote for The New York Times in January 2017, just days before Trumps inauguration:

FMD_train_914

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

09/28/2020

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

False

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here.On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns.As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017 no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account:The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011 none of which was related to taxes but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then. This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets.A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:

FMD_train_320

Major Oil Companies

07/14/2008

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

False

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

FMD_train_136

Viral Grocery Store Meme Uses 2018 Photo To Illustrate 'Biden's America'

10/14/2021

On Oct. 12, 2021, a Facebook user posted a meme that purported to compare grocery store shelves as they appeared in "Trump's America" versus "Biden's America." The meme was somewhat similar to another one we previously reported on regarding gas prices, and both were highly misleading. The meme was shared 50,000 times in the first 48 hours. In reality, the photograph of fully stocked grocery store shelves labeled "Trump's America" was captured in 2012, when former U.S. President Barack Obama was in the White House. Additionally, it wasn't even taken in the U.S.; according to the Wikimedia Commons caption, it was shot at a Coles Supermarket at Westfield Southland Shopping Centre in Melbourne, Australia. Meanwhile, the second picture showing nearly empty shelves labeled "Biden's America" was captured while former President Donald Trump was in office. According to MyHorryNews.com, which publishes local news for South Carolina, it was taken after a hurricane in September 2018. The caption read: "Randy Spivey, Hills manager, concerned about when he can get his shelves restocked after Hurricane Florence and the flood that hit the area recently." Presidents of both parties have faced natural disasters like Hurricane Florence that temporarily emptied store shelves in affected areas. Furthermore, readers may recall that shelves were emptied of popular foods and other goods at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. The New York Times attributed the empty shelves to "panic shopping." The misleading Facebook meme was apparently posted in reaction to a shipping container logjam that was also occurring in October 2021. According to The Associated Press, it led to "mass shortages" of goods and delays that caused a longer-than-expected bout of inflation. Businesses were worrying about monthslong delays for shipping containers in June, yet the administration only formed its supply chain task force that month and named a port envoy on Aug. 27 to address the challenge. Ports are just one piece of the puzzle, Biden said. The country needs more truck drivers, private retailers to step up, better infrastructure, and a supply chain that can be less easily disrupted by pandemics and extreme weather. The president is trying to use the predicament as a selling point for his policy plans that are undergoing congressional scrutiny. "We need to take a longer view and invest in building greater resiliency to withstand the kinds of shocks we've seen over and over, year in and year out—the risk of pandemic, extreme weather, climate change, cyberattacks, weather disruptions," he said. The sense of uncertainty is beginning to consume the attention of many Americans. As for what caused the supply chain issues in the first place, the Los Angeles Times described the root of the problem in the simplest way: the COVID-19 pandemic. The Times published that "the pandemic whirled up a toxic brew of forces that triggered and then exacerbated the shipping logjam." The first blow came when many of the Chinese plants that build parts or assemble goods for global manufacturers were shut down by coronavirus outbreaks. Similar disruptions soon spread across the globe, affecting both manufacturers and the logistics companies that ship, store, and deliver their goods. After a brief COVID-related recession, however, demand for goods grew quickly, as people shifted to online buying and adopted new habits (a surge in home-improvement projects, for example, boosted demand for appliances and construction materials). The pandemic is not entirely to blame. Robert Handfield, the Bank of America professor of supply chain management at North Carolina State University, said that "warehouse, distribution, and truck driver shortages were bad before COVID." But the pandemic made the shortfall dramatically worse. The Washington Post also published an interview with Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, who said that "the United States is 'decades behind' foreign ports in getting carriers, terminals, and shippers to provide each other access to commercial data for planning purposes." In sum, the viral Facebook meme that purported to display "Trump's America" versus "Biden's America" showed pictures from the wrong presidential terms, and one of them wasn't even captured in the U.S. Further, it appeared to be attempting to score political points on a much larger problem.

False

On Oct. 12, 2021, a Facebook user posted a meme that purported to compare grocery store shelves as they appeared in "Trump's America" vs. "Biden's America." The meme was somewhat similar to another one we previously reported about on the subject of gas prices. The meme was shared 50,000 times in the first 48 hours.Also, it wasn't even taken in the U.S. According to the Wikimedia Commons caption, it was shot at a Coles Supermarket at Westfield Southland Shopping Centre in Melbourne, Australia.Meanwhile, the second picture showing nearly empty shelves that was labeled "Biden's America" was captured while former President Donald Trump was in office. According to MyHorryNews.com, which publishes local news for South Carolina, it was shot after a hurricane in September 2018. The caption read: "Randy Spivey, Hills manager, concerned about when he can get his shelves restocked after Hurricane Florence and the flood that hit the area recently."Presidents of both parties have been faced with natural disasters like Hurricane Florence that emptied some store shelves in impacted areas for temporary periods of time. Further, readers may recall that shelves were emptied of popular foods and other goods at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in March 2020. The New York Times attributed the empty shelves to "panic shopping." March 14, 2020. (Photo by JOSH EDELSON/AFP via Getty Images)The misleading Facebook meme was apparently posted in reaction to a shipping container logjam that was also occurring in October 2021.According to The Associated Press, it led to "mass shortages" of goods "and delays that have caused a longer than expected bout of inflation."As for what caused the supply chain issues in the first place, the Los Angeles Times described the root of the problem in the simplest way: the COVID-19 pandemic.The Washington Post also published an interview with Gene Seroka, executive director of the Port of Los Angeles, who said that "the United States is 'decades behind' foreign ports in getting carriers, terminals, and shippers to provide each other access to commercial data for planning purposes."

FMD_train_525

Did Dave Ramsey Warn About a 'Cashless Society'?

07/14/2020

In July 2020, a message supposedly written by radio host and financial advisor Dave Ramsey about the dangers of a cashless society went viral on social media. This piece of text typically started with the title "Here's What No Cash Actually Means" and included a line attributing the message to Ramsey. A common tactic of purveyors of misinformation is to attach a well-known or well-liked person to an opinion piece in an attempt to give those opinions credence. In this case, Ramsey was linked to this warning about a cashless society to lend some authority to the diatribe. However, Ramsey did not write the text in question. On July 10, 2020, he took to Twitter to clarify that he had nothing to do with this message. Ramsey exclaimed, "NOT me," before adding a common and obviously fictitious quote from late U.S. President Abraham Lincoln about believing everything you read on the internet. It should also be noted that many of the activities mentioned in this post wouldn't actually be precluded in a cashless society. One could still, for instance, do odd jobs, send money for birthdays, or sell used items for extra cash. The nature of these transactions might change (one would have to find a digital solution, such as prepaid debit cards or a mobile payment service), but it wouldn't cause these acts to disappear entirely. Although Ramsey did not write this warning, the financial guru has expressed his thoughts on the idea of a cashless society. When asked about his views on businesses eliminating cash transactions, Ramsey stated that it wasn't a topic that caused him much concern: "I really don't spend a lot of time thinking or worrying about the situation. When it comes right down to it, most businesses are doing that for one or

False

Ramsey, however, did not write the above-displayed text. On July 10, 2020, Ramsey took to Twitter to clarify that he had nothing to do with this message. Ramsey exclaimed "NOT me" before adding a common and obviously fictitious quote from late U.S. President Abraham Lincoln about believing everything you read on the internet:Although Ramsey did not write this warning, the financial guru has opined on the idea of a cashless society. When asked about his thoughts on businesses doing away with cash transactions, Ramsey said that it wasn't a topic that caused him much worry:

FMD_train_1195

Is the Equifax Data Breach Settlement Email Genuine?

01/31/2022

In late January 2022, Google users looked to Reddit and elsewhere to find out if an email for the status of the Equifax data breach settlement was a "scam or legit," as readers often do after receiving such notices. The email had the subject line, "Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code)," and linked to the website, experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. It promised a free four-year membership for the credit monitoring service Experian IdentityWorks. Google Reddit experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement This was a legitimate notice for a data breach settlement for Equifax. Readers might remember making a claim in the settlement back in July 2019. Users who opted to receive credit monitoring instead of a check were sent activation codes in the new email for Experian IdentityWorks. The official website for the settlement was equifaxbreachsettlement.com. back in July 2019 equifaxbreachsettlement.com The official settlement website documented the fact that in September 2017, Equifax was "the victim of a criminal cyberattack," giving the attackers "unauthorized access to the personal information of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers." This included "peoples names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some instances drivers license numbers, credit card numbers, or other personal information." documented Equifax Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers whose personal information was impacted as a result of the Data Breach. Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is overseeing these lawsuits. These lawsuits are known as In re: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT. The consumers who sued are called the Plaintiffs. Equifax, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries are the Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that Equifax did not adequately protect consumers personal information and that Equifax delayed in providing notice of the data breach. The most recent version of the lawsuit, which describes the specific legal claims alleged by the Plaintiffs, is available here. Equifax denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. here In the end, both sides of the legal battle "agreed to a settlement after a lengthy mediation process overseen by a retired federal judge." That settlement allowed claimants to choose to receive a check or credit monitoring. Anyone who chose to receive a check might eventually receive an amount much smaller than expected, as the "alternative compensation of up to $125" would "likely will be substantially lowered" to a "small percentage" of what was expected. In 2017, the Equifax website provided steps for consumers to take following a security breach at the company. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) The email that began to be sent in late January 2022 provided a status update on the Equifax data breach settlement. According to a copy of the email that we reviewed, it read as follows: Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code) Issue Date: January 31, 2022 Claim No. (removed)Dear (removed): You filed a claim in the Equifax Data Breach Settlement and chose to receive free, three-bureau (Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion) credit monitoring from Experian for four years. Implementation of the Settlement was delayed by appeals; however, the Settlement is now effective because appellate courts have affirmed it. This email provides additional information about the services provided by Experian as part of the Settlement and how you can enroll. You are receiving free membership in Experian IdentityWorks for four years. You must enroll by June 27, 2022. This service is free for you and provided as a Settlement benefit. You do not need to provide any payment information to enroll and you do not need to cancel the service when it ends. We encourage you to enroll today. HOW TO ENROLL: Visit the Experian IdentityWorks Website: www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement Enter Your Activation Code: (removed) www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement You must use the above code to enroll by June 27, 2022 (your activation code will not work after this date). If you have questions, need help with Identity Restoration (either because you were a victim of fraud or identity theft) because of the Equifax data breach, or would like another way to sign up for Experian IdentityWorks, please call Experians customer care team toll-free at 1-877-251-5822. So that the team may better serve you, please be prepared to provide them with engagement number (removed) so that you may access the Settlements Identity Restoration services for assistance with fraud or identity theft. For more information on Identity Restoration services, visit www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement The email also broke down exactly what is included in the four-year membership to the credit monitoring service known as Experian IdentityWorks: Experian IdentityWorks - Daily Credit Monitoring* from each of the three nationwide Consumer Reporting Agencies showing key changes to your Consumer Reports;- Automated alerts when new accounts are opened; inquiries or requests for credit reports are made for the purpose of determining credit; changes to address; and negative information (including delinquencies or bankruptcies);- On-demand online access to a copy of your Experian Consumer Report, updated monthly;- Automated non-credit alerts, using public or proprietary data sources, for example: when certain information is found on a suspicious website or the dark web; when names, aliases, and addresses have been associated with your Social Security Number; when a payday loan or unsecured credit has been taken or opened using your Social Security Number; when your information matches information in arrest or criminal court records; when your information is used for identity authentication; when your mail has been redirected through the U.S. Postal Service; when banking activity is detected related to new deposit account applications, changes to personal information, and new signers are added to accounts; and when a balance is reported on your credit line that has been inactive for at least six months;- Up to One Million in Identity Theft Insurance** which provides coverage for certain costs and unauthorized electronic fund transfers;- A customer service center to assist with enrollment, monitoring alerts, disputes, fraud, and other Credit Monitoring Service questions;- Full Identity Restoration Service if you are the victim of fraud or identity theft (which includes a dedicated identity theft restoration specialist who will provide you with step-by-step assistance, and form letters to contact companies, government agencies, and Consumer Reporting Agencies), and- Child Monitoring Services (for Class Members under the age of eighteen). * Daily credit reports are only available online. If you do not register online, you can call for additional reports each quarter after you sign-up.** The Identity Theft Insurance is underwritten and administered by American Bankers Insurance Company of Florida, an Assurant company. Please refer to the actual policies for terms, conditions, and exclusions of coverage. Coverage may not be available in all jurisdictions. Close-up of code on a computer screen for the Apache Struts framework, which was exploited by computer hackers using a Remote Code Execution exploit in order to allegedly steal the personal information of millions of people from credit bureau Equifax, Oct. 2, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) To reach the administrator of the Equifax data breach settlement or to inquire about its status, the email said to call 1-833-759-2982. Meanwhile, any questions about Experian IdentityWorks can be directed to the phone number 1-877-251-5822. Equifax We previously reported on other legal matters involving settlements for National Grid and a Plaid Inc. National Grid Plaid Inc

True

In late January 2022, Google users looked to Reddit and elsewhere to find out if an email for the status of the Equifax data breach settlement was a "scam or legit," as readers often do after receiving such notices. The email had the subject line, "Equifax Data Breach Settlement (Credit Monitoring Instructions and Activation Code)," and linked to the website, experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement. It promised a free four-year membership for the credit monitoring service Experian IdentityWorks.This was a legitimate notice for a data breach settlement for Equifax. Readers might remember making a claim in the settlement back in July 2019. Users who opted to receive credit monitoring instead of a check were sent activation codes in the new email for Experian IdentityWorks. The official website for the settlement was equifaxbreachsettlement.com.The official settlement website documented the fact that in September 2017, Equifax was "the victim of a criminal cyberattack," giving the attackers "unauthorized access to the personal information of approximately 147 million U.S. consumers." This included "peoples names, Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses, and in some instances drivers license numbers, credit card numbers, or other personal information."Numerous lawsuits were brought on behalf of consumers whose personal information was impacted as a result of the Data Breach. Chief Judge Thomas W. Thrash Jr. of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia is overseeing these lawsuits. These lawsuits are known as In re: Equifax Inc. Customer Data Security Breach Litigation, Case No. 1:17-md-2800-TWT. The consumers who sued are called the Plaintiffs. Equifax, Inc., and two of its subsidiaries are the Defendants. Plaintiffs claimed that Equifax did not adequately protect consumers personal information and that Equifax delayed in providing notice of the data breach. The most recent version of the lawsuit, which describes the specific legal claims alleged by the Plaintiffs, is available here. Equifax denies any wrongdoing, and no court or other judicial entity has made any judgment or other determination of any wrongdoing. In 2017, the Equifax website provided steps for consumers to take following a security breach at the company. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images) Visit the Experian IdentityWorks Website: www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement Enter Your Activation Code: (removed)If you have questions, need help with Identity Restoration (either because you were a victim of fraud or identity theft) because of the Equifax data breach, or would like another way to sign up for Experian IdentityWorks, please call Experians customer care team toll-free at 1-877-251-5822. So that the team may better serve you, please be prepared to provide them with engagement number (removed) so that you may access the Settlements Identity Restoration services for assistance with fraud or identity theft. For more information on Identity Restoration services, visit www.experianidworks.com/equifaxsettlement.The email also broke down exactly what is included in the four-year membership to the credit monitoring service known as Experian IdentityWorks: Close-up of code on a computer screen for the Apache Struts framework, which was exploited by computer hackers using a Remote Code Execution exploit in order to allegedly steal the personal information of millions of people from credit bureau Equifax, Oct. 2, 2017. (Photo by Smith Collection/Gado/Getty Images)To reach the administrator of the Equifax data breach settlement or to inquire about its status, the email said to call 1-833-759-2982. Meanwhile, any questions about Experian IdentityWorks can be directed to the phone number 1-877-251-5822.We previously reported on other legal matters involving settlements for National Grid and a Plaid Inc.

FMD_train_1489

Says that as Massachusetts governor, Mitt Romney condemned coal-fired plants, saying they kill people.

08/23/2012

Mitt Romney came to coal country on Aug. 14, standing before a crowd of miners in eastern Ohio and pledging to fight for their jobs. You could be forgiven for thinking this was much ado about 3,150 jobs—the number employed directly by coal operations in Ohio, at least before two mines announced layoffs recently. But Romney's greater point was about how coal fuels many power plants in Ohio and the region, and how, he says, environmental regulation from President Barack Obama's administration threatens jobs at those plants, too. This could drive up the cost of electricity for every Ohioan, Romney said. This debate—over the cost of electricity, the shift among power plants to natural gas, the environmental and health risks, and the role the government should or shouldn't play—has been building for years. After the event, the Obama campaign responded, saying that Romney's position on coal has changed substantially since he was governor of Massachusetts. Immediately after becoming governor, Romney condemned coal-fired plants, saying they kill people, according to an Obama campaign news release. The claim was similar to one the Obama team made in a radio ad, and Obama reelection aides backed it with specific quotes Romney made in February 2003, when he was the freshly elected governor of Massachusetts. The Obama campaign also highlighted a Romney quote that had no lethal references but was just as strong. It came from a Massachusetts news release in which Romney said, "If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind. I will always come down on the side of public health." Romney made each of these statements during a Feb. 6, 2003, showdown over the future of the controversial, coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station. In 2001, Massachusetts passed new rules to reduce power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide, and mercury, to be phased in over several years. The mercury standard would not be finalized until 2004. Romney supported the rules, as he made clear repeatedly. Massachusetts singled out its most egregious polluters as the Filthy Five plants, including Salem Harbor. Public health and environmental scientists at Harvard studied the emissions from two of the plants in 2000 and concluded that Salem Harbor was responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, 14,400 asthma attacks, and 99,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms—all per year. As occurs with similar studies that health authorities cite, local residents and others who wanted to keep the Salem Harbor plant open (for jobs and tax revenue) disputed those figures, saying they resulted from unproven modeling. It turned out that the Harvard scientists had revised their figures in 2002, putting premature deaths from Salem Harbor's pollution at 30 per year and reducing the number of emergency room visits to 400 and the asthma attacks to 2,000, according to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald. But the scientists stood by the broader conclusion—that emissions from dirty power plants can be deadly. The Harvard methodology has now been widely replicated and is respected by health scientists, according to several environmental authorities we spoke with. Romney appeared to accept their findings, too. In the above-mentioned news release, the commonwealth of Massachusetts quoted Romney in the third person on the danger factor: Romney said that the Salem Harbor plant is responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits, and 14,400 asthma attacks each year. He also pointed out that coal and oil-fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas-fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming. This was in a news release issued by the governor's aides, not some radical outside instigator. It was issued under the name of Romney, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey, and Romney's development chief, Douglas Foy. According to the Boston Globe, Romney hired Foy from the Conservation Law Foundation, a leading environmental advocacy group in Massachusetts. The spat with Salem Harbor turned into a testy exchange that February day after Salem Harbor's then-owner, Pacific Gas and Electric, sought an extension until 2006 to comply with Massachusetts emissions rules—and plant supporters showed up to demand that the governor back off. Romney was adamant that the company comply by 2004. His statements that day show how he felt: "That plant kills people." And to those, including city officials, who argued that this would cost jobs: "I will not create jobs that kill people." Based on some of the quotes, it might appear that Romney was speaking only about that single plant (which a new owner, Dominion, is phasing out, after which a subsequent third owner will build a natural gas plant there). That's what we thought when we began looking into this. It is also what the Romney campaign told us in an email. So was it accurate for the Obama campaign to imply that Romney's words characterized his broader attitude toward coal emissions when he was governor? We kept looking because people in the environmental community told us it was a valid claim. The news release under Romney's name suggested it as well. Romney spoke of plants, not just a single one, when he pointed out that coal and oil-fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas-fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming. Still, to give him the benefit of the doubt, what if he really just meant the Salem Harbor plant? Wasn't that plant particularly egregious when compared with coal-fired plants under attack by federal regulators today? No, say environmentalists, including authorities from the Conservation Law Foundation. Their claims are supported by U.S. EPA emissions data we verified independently. "When he said that this plant kills people, he was talking about a plant that produced pollution comparable to the emissions of plants in the Midwest," said Seth Kaplan, vice president for policy and climate advocacy at the Conservation Law Foundation. Jonathan Peress, an environmental and regulatory attorney who works for the CLF and was recently chairman of the American Bar Association's air quality committee, added in a separate interview with PolitiFact Ohio that Romney promoted Massachusetts air standards that were almost identical to those the U.S. EPA wants to enforce—and that Romney now criticizes. "The levels of emissions that he was talking about were levels that were virtually identical to what the EPA has proposed," Kaplan agreed. "He was steadfastly standing behind emissions reductions that are the same as those currently attacked." To see if this was accurate—that the emissions Romney decried were similar to or even weaker than those under current attack now by the EPA (whose rules Romney now attacks)—we examined the emissions cuts that Massachusetts wanted and data on the level of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions at Salem Harbor and in the Midwest. The U.S. EPA keeps the information in its extensive Clean Air Markets database. Nitrogen oxides react with sunlight to create ozone and smog. Sulfur dioxide is tied to particulate matter and is considered particularly dangerous to health, said Jonathan Walke, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund. The level of both these substances was multiple times lower at Salem Harbor, even when Romney was trying to force the plant to reduce emissions, than at Eastlake in Northeast Ohio and several other Ohio plants we checked. Our comparisons included multiple years, including Salem Harbor in 2003 with Ohio plants in 2011. To compensate for differences in electricity output, number of boilers, and hours of operation at different power plants, we checked the data for emissions per megawatt-hour. The pattern held. "It's all the same pollution, albeit in higher quantities in Ohio," Walke said. You might ask why we looked at Eastlake. It's because FirstEnergy Corp. plans to shut down two of that plant's boilers rather than spend heavily on scrubbers to comply with EPA rules. This is one of several coal-burning plants at the heart of the current jobs-versus-pollution debate, although Romney did not mention it specifically. It's important to note that the rules on nitrogen and sulfur are not what is prompting the FirstEnergy shutdowns. New EPA rules on mercury and toxic metals are the cause of planned closures in Eastlake. The tougher limits won't take effect until 2014. The EPA aims to cut mercury emissions by 79 percent. But as the Massachusetts governor, Romney supported mercury reductions in his state, too. In 2004, he signed off on a rule aiming to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent by 2012. With Romney's name on the letterhead, Massachusetts in May 2004 issued a lengthy set of justifications for the mercury rule. Among them: "First, [new research] confirms and extends our understanding of mercury's harmful effects on learning, attention, and other critical cognitive skills in children. Recent studies have found that children exposed to mercury levels may show signs of attention deficit disorder, impaired visual-spatial skills, and poor coordination." Romney was a champion of those mercury regulations, said Shanna Cleveland, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. "He was one of the reasons we got them through." Time to clean up: Romney was discussing a specific power plant, Salem Harbor, when he said, "That plant kills people." But the public record shows that his comments were part of a broad emissions-cutting program he embraced. And the power plant that he considered deadly had emissions that were no worse, and in many cases lower, than at Midwest plants that he would now want left alone, citing the use of affordable and abundant coal. If one were to have supported the regulations Romney wanted in 2003, it's fairly safe to assume that one would also support such things nationally, said Jonathan Levy, an environmental scientist at Boston University and Harvard and co-author of the now heavily replicated study on the correlation between coal-burning power plants and respiratory health. The Obama campaign claimed that as governor, Romney condemned coal plants as killers. He spoke at times of a single plant, but at other times made clear that other plants also needed to cut emissions for the sake of public health. This even included new rules for mercury reductions—the same substance from coal plants that now is prompting closures in Ohio. The debate over coal involves calculations of costs, the abundance or scarcity of natural resources, health and environmental risks, and attitudes about government regulation. It is not our role to say whether Romney was right or wrong at one time. But with additional information from emissions data, interviews, and the public record of his governorship, the Obama campaign's claim about Romney's coal position of nine years ago is nearly as clear as a haze-free day. On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates Mostly True.

True

The Obama campaign also highlighted a Romney quote that had no lethal references but was just as strong. It came from astate of Massachusetts newsreleasein which Romney said: If the choice is between dirty power plants or protecting the health of the people of Massachusetts, there is no choice in my mind. I will always come down on the side of public health.Romney made each of these statements during a Feb. 6, 2003, showdown over the future of the controversial, coal-burning Salem Harbor Power Station.In 2001, Massachusetts passed new rules to reduce power plant emissions of nitrogen oxide, sulfur dioxide, carbon dioxide and mercury, to be phased in over several years. The mercury standard would not be finalized until 2004. Romney supported the rules, as he made clear repeatedly.Massachusetts singled out its most egregious polluters as the Filthy Five plants, including Salem Harbor. Public health and environmental scientists at Harvard studied the emissions from two of the plants in 2000 and concluded that Salem Harbor was responsible for 53 deaths, 570 emergency room visits, 14,400 asthma attacks and 99,000 incidents of upper respiratory symptoms -- all per year.As occurs with similar studies that health authorities cite, local residents and others who wanted to keep the Salem Harbor plant open (for jobs and tax revenue) disputed those figures, saying they resulted from unproven modeling. It turned out that the Harvard scientists had revised their figures in 2002, putting premature deaths from Salem Harbors pollution at 30 per year and reducing the number of emergency room visits to 400 and the asthma attacks at 2,000, according to the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald.But the scientists stood by the broader conclusion -- that emissions from dirty power plants can be deadly. The Harvard methodology has now been widely replicated and is respected by health scientists, according to several environmental authorities we spoke with. Romney appeared to accept their findings, too. In the above-mentionednews release, the commonwealth of Massachusetts quoted Romney in the third person on the danger factor:Romney said that the Salem Harbor plant is responsible for 53 premature deaths, 570 emergency room visits and 14,400 asthma attacks each year. He also pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming.This was in a news release issued by the governors aides, not some radical outside instigator. It was issued under the name of Romney, Lt. Gov. Kerry Healey and Romneys development chief, Douglas Foy. According to the Boston Globe, Romney hired Foy from the Conservation Law Foundation, or CLF, a leading environmental advocacy group in Massachusetts.The spat with Salem Harbor turned into a testy exchange that February day after Salem Harbors then-owner, Pacific Gas and Electric, sought an extension until 2006 to comply with Massachusetts emissions rules -- and plant supporters showed up to to demand that the governor back off. Romney was adamant that the company comply by 2004. His statements that day show how he felt: That plant kills people. And to those including city officials who argued that this would cost jobs: I will not create jobs that kill people.Based on some of the quotes, it might appear that Romney was speaking only about that single plant (which a new owner, Dominion, is phasing out, after which a subsequent third ownerwill build a natural gas plantthere). Thats what we thought when we began looking into this. It is also what the Romney campaign told us in email.So was it accurate for the Obama campaign to imply that Romneys words characterized his broader attitude toward coal emissions when he was governor?We kept looking, because people in the environmental community told us it was a valid claim. And the news release under Romneys name suggested it as well.Romney spoke of plants, not just a single one, when he pointed out that coal and oil fired plants contribute significantly more air pollution than their gas fired counterparts, exacerbating acid rain and global warming.Still, to give him the benefit of doubt, what if he really just meant the Salem Harbor plant? Wasnt that plant particularly egregious when compared with coal-fired plants under attack by federal regulators today?No, say environmentalists who include authorities from the CLF.Their claims are supported by U.S. EPA emissions data we verified independently.When he said that this plant kills people, he was talking about a plant that produced pollution comparable to the emissions of plants in the Midwest, said Seth Kaplan, vice president for policy and climate advocacy at the conservation foundation.Jonathan Peress, an environmental and regulatory attorney who works for the CLF and was recently chairman of the American Bar Associations air quality committee, added in a separate interview with PolitiFact Ohio that Romney promoted Massachusetts air standards that were almost identical to those the U.S. EPA wants to enforce -- and that Romney now criticizes.The levels of emissions that he was talking about were levels that were virtually identical to what the EPA has proposed, Kaplan agreed. He was steadfastly standing behind emissions reductions that are the same as those currently attacked.To see if this was accurate -- that the emissions Romney decried were similar to or even weaker than those under current attack now by the EPA (whose rules Romney now attacks) -- we examined the emissions cuts that Massachusetts wanted and data on the level of sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxides emissions at Salem Harbor and in the Midwest. The U.S. EPA keeps the information in its extensiveClean Air Marketsdatabase.Nitrogen oxides react with sunlight to create ozone and smog. Sulfur dioxide is tied to particulate matter and is considered particularly dangerous to health, said Jonathan Walke, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council Action Fund.The level of both these substances was multiple times lower at Salem Harbor, even when Romney was trying to force the plant to reduce emissions, than at Eastlake in Northeast Ohio and several other Ohio plants we checked. Our comparisons included multiple years, including Salem Harbor in 2003 with Ohio plants in 2011. To compensate for differences in electricity output, number of boilers and hours of operation at different power plants, we checked the data for emissions per megawatt-hour. The pattern held.Its all the same pollution, albeit in higher quantities in Ohio, Walke said.You might ask why we looked at Eastlake. Its because FirstEnergy Corp. plans to shut down two of that plants boilers rather than spend heavily on scrubbers to comply with EPA rules. This is one of several coal-burning plants at the heart of the current jobs-versus-pollution debate, although Romney did not mention it specifically.Its important to note that the rules on nitrogen and sulfur are not what is prompting the FirstEnergy shutdowns. New EPA rules on mercury and toxic metals are the cause of planned closures in Eastlake. The tougher limits wont take effect until 2014. The EPA aims to cut mercury emissions by 79 percent.But as the Massachusetts governor, Romney supported mercury reductions in his state, too. In 2004, he signed off on a rule aiming to reduce mercury emissions by 95 percent by 2012. With Romneys name on the letterhead, Massachusetts in May, 2004, issued a lengthy set of justifications for the mercury rule. Among them:First, [new research] confirms and extends our understanding of mercury's harmful effects on learning, attention and other critical cognitive skills in children. Recent studies have found that children exposed to mercury levels may show signs of attention deficit disorder, impaired visual-spatial skills and poor coordination.Romney was a champion of those mercury regulations, said Shanna Cleveland, a staff attorney with the Conservation Law Foundation. He was one of the reasons we got them through.Time to clean up: Romney was discussing a specific power plant, Salem Harbor, when he said, That plant kills people. But the public record shows that his comments were part of a broad emissions-cutting program he embraced.And the power plant that he considered deadly had emissions that were no worse, and in many cases lower, than at Midwest plants that he would now wants left alone, citing the use of affordable and abundant coal.If one were to have supported the regulations Romney wanted in 2003, its fairly safe to assume that one would also support such things nationally, said Jonathan Levy, an environmental scientist at Boston University and Harvard and co-author of the now heavily replicated study on the correlation between coal-burning power plants and respiratory health.The Obama campaign claimed that as governor, Romney condemned coal plants as killers. He spoke at times of a single plant, but at other times made clear that other plants also needed to cut emissions for the sake of public health. This even included new rules for mercury reductions -- the same substance from coal plants that now is prompting closures in Ohio.The debate over coal involves calculations of costs, the abundance or scarcity of natural resources, health and environmental risks, and attitudes about government regulation. It is not our role to say Romney was right or wrong at one time.But with additional information from emissions data, interviews and the public record of his governorship, the Obama campaign claim about Romneys coal position of nine years ago is nearly as clear as a haze-free day.On the Truth-O-Meter, it rates Mostly True.

FMD_train_386

It is estimated that as many as 300,000 auto workers may be out of a job before the end of the year.

08/21/2019

Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently criticized President Donald Trump over his trade policy, stating that it is harming American workers. The California senator claimed that as many as 300,000 auto workers were expected to lose their jobs this year, suggesting that Trump was to blame. "Donald Trump betrayed a lot of people. He came into office making all kinds of promises to working people, from farmers to auto workers," Harris said in a CNN interview on Aug. 12. "He said he was going to help working people, and it is estimated that as many as 300,000 auto workers may be out of a job before the end of the year." Trump's trade policy, particularly the tariffs he has imposed on China, has been blamed by economists for hurting farmers. However, are as many as 300,000 auto workers really expected to lose their jobs by the end of this year, as Harris claimed? Two recent fact-checks have called that figure into question. We will review the facts and assign a rating to the senator's claim. Checking the facts: After the interview, Harris's campaign told CNN that the 300,000 number is from a February study by the Center for Automotive Research (CAR). The research group examined the impact of a 25 percent tariff Trump proposed on all imported cars and auto parts, except for those from Canada, Mexico, and South Korea. It estimated that between approximately 70,000 and 367,000 jobs would be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but not specifically among autoworkers, under a worst-case scenario. In May, Trump delayed for six months his decision on whether to impose the tariffs. Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor, and economics at CAR, told FactCheck.org in an email: "300,000 auto workers out of a job before the end of the year is NOT what CAR is projecting." FactCheck.org added that Dziczek confirmed the figure was an estimate for job loss across the economy one year after several proposed and implemented trade policies on the auto industry went into effect. The CAR report did not specify how many of the up to 367,000 job losses would come from the auto industry. Dziczek told CNN that the auto sector is starting to shrink, but she added that a rapid loss of 300,000 autoworker jobs would be orders of magnitude worse than what we're expecting to see. The only industry-specific estimate was for 77,000 job losses at car dealerships. Dziczek told PolitiFact California that there would be an overall net loss in the auto assembly and parts sectors. "How big of a loss depends on how willing consumers would be to switch brand preference from imports to vehicles made in the United States," she wrote in an email. FactCheck.org described Harris's claim as wrong, while CNN stated it was false. Harris's campaign did not respond to our request for comment, including whether the senator has corrected or plans to correct her statement. Our ruling: Sen. Kamala Harris claimed that as many as 300,000 auto workers may lose their jobs by the end of this year. She relied on a study that predicted, in a worst-case scenario, that between 70,000 and 367,000 jobs could be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but not all from the auto industry. The losses would occur one year after President Trump imposes a proposed 25 percent tariff on imported cars and auto parts. Trump has delayed his decision on those tariffs until later this year, meaning the one-year later impact would not be felt until well into 2020, and not by the end of this year, as Harris stated. Harris's claim significantly overestimates potential job losses for the auto industry, the timing of those losses, and ignores the fact that no decision has been made on the tariffs. We rated her claim False.

False

Donald Trump betrayed a lot of people. He came in office, making all kinds of promises to working people, from farmers to auto workers, Harris said in aCNN interviewon Aug. 12. He said he was going to help working people, and it is estimated that as many as 300,000 auto workers may be out of a job before the end of the year.Trumps trade policy, especially the tariffs hes placed on China, have been blamed by economists forhurting farmers. But are as many as 300,000 auto workers really expected to lose their jobs by the end of this year as Harris claimed?After the interview, Harris campaign told CNN the 300,000 number is from aFebruary study by the Center For Automotive Research, CAR.The research group examined the impact of a 25 percent tariff Trump proposed on all imported cars and auto parts except on Canada, Mexico and South Korea. It estimated that between about 70,000 jobs and 367,000 jobs would be lost across all sectors of the U.S. economy, but not specifically among autoworkers, under a worst-case scenario. In May, Trumpdelayed for six monthshis decision on whether to impose the tariffs.Kristin Dziczek, vice president of industry, labor & economics at the research center, or CAR,told FactCheck.orgin an email: 300,000 auto workers out of a job before the end of the year is NOT what CAR is projecting. FactCheck.org added thatDziczekconfirmed the figure was an estimate for job loss across the economy one year after several proposed and implemented trade policies on the auto industry went into effect.The CAR report did not specify how many of the up to 367,000 job losses would come from the auto industry.Dziczektold CNN the (auto) sector is starting to shrink, but she added that a rapid loss of 300,000 autoworker jobs would be orders of magnitude worse than what we're expecting to see.The only industry specific estimate was for 77,000 job losses at car dealerships.Dziczektold PolitiFact California there would an overall net loss in auto assembly and parts sectors.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_1001

Amelia Bassano: The True Shakespeare?

08/20/2015

In August 2015, a meme claiming that a black woman named Amelia Bassano Lanyer was the true (uncredited) author of all of William Shakespeare's plays began circulating online: Although the authorship of Shakespeare's plays remains a topic of some debate among scholars, the above-displayed meme contains several factual errors. First, Aemilia Bassano (later Emilia Lanier) was indeed a published author, not someone whose work was suppressed because of her race or gender. In fact, the Shakespearean Authorship Trust notes that Bassano became the "first woman to publish a book of original poetry" when her work Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum was put into print in 1611: Brought up opposite the theatre district in a family of Venetian Jews of Moroccan ancestry, at the age of 7 she was given to be educated by Countess Susan Bertie, in the family headed by Peregrine Bertie, Lord Willoughby. At the age of 13 she became mistress to Lord Hunsdon, the man in charge of the English theatre. When she got pregnant a decade later she was expelled from court and married off to a minstrel. She was one of the first women to own and operate a school and the first woman to publish a book of original poetry Salve Deus Rex Judaeorum (1611). She died in poverty. Second, Bassano was not black. She was born to Baptista Bassano (a Venice musician at the court of Elizabeth I) and Margaret Johnson in 1569, and biographies of her note that she "was part of a family of Italian court musicians of Moroccan/Semitic ancestry who lived as clandestine Jews." born No contemporaneous accounts describe Bassano as "black" (or "African"), and although its provenance is uncertain, many historians believe that this miniature portrait by Nicholas Hilliard depicts Amelia Bassano: portrait Amelia Bassano may have been dark-complected, however. A 2009 paper published in the Oxfordian, the journal of Shakespearean authorship studies, stated that some of Bassano's relatives were referred to as "black" when they arrived in London, likely due to their dark complexions: referred Brought to London from Venice in 1538/9, the dark-skinned Bassanos, some of whom were described in contemporary records as 'black' and who may have been of Moroccan as well as Jewish ancestry, became established as the Court recorder troupe." Lastly, the claim that Amelia Bassano wrote all of William Shakespeare's plays is a decidedly fringe notion, even within the world of Shakespearean authorship controversies. While she is listed as a potential candidate by the Shakespearean Authorship Trust (a group seemingly determined to credit Shakespeare's work to anyone but Shakespeare himself), even among that group she is included as just one of 66 candidates identified so far: candidate She has long been identified as the 'dark lady' of the Sonnets. Her candidacy was announced in March 2007 in a lecture at the Smithsonian Institution as part of the Washington Shakespeare Festival by John Hudson, artistic director of the Dark Lady Players, a New York company who perform the underlying Jewish allegories in the plays. A 5000 word major article on her appears in the Summer/Fall 2009 special issue of The Oxfordian dedicated to the top authorship candidates.

False

Second, Bassano was not black. She was born to Baptista Bassano (a Venice musician at the court of Elizabeth I) and Margaret Johnson in 1569, and biographies of her note that she "was part of a family of Italian court musicians of Moroccan/Semitic ancestry who lived as clandestine Jews."No contemporaneous accounts describe Bassano as "black" (or "African"), and although its provenance is uncertain, many historians believe that this miniature portrait by Nicholas Hilliard depicts Amelia Bassano:Amelia Bassano may have been dark-complected, however. A 2009 paper published in the Oxfordian, the journal of Shakespearean authorship studies, stated that some of Bassano's relatives were referred to as "black" when they arrived in London, likely due to their dark complexions: Lastly, the claim that Amelia Bassano wrote all of William Shakespeare's plays is a decidedly fringe notion, even within the world of Shakespearean authorship controversies. While she is listed as a potential candidate by the Shakespearean Authorship Trust (a group seemingly determined to credit Shakespeare's work to anyone but Shakespeare himself), even among that group she is included as just one of 66 candidates identified so far:

FMD_train_1343

Blacks Don't Read

06/22/2010

Claim: Dee Lee penned a screed opining that blacks 'don't read.' INCORRECTLY ATTRIBUTED Example: [Collected via e-mail, January 2002] Blacks Don't Read This is very deep, and unfortunately, very true! This is a heavvvvy piece and a Caucasian wrote it. THEY ARE STILL OUR SLAVESWe can continue to reap profits from the Blacks without the effort of physical slavery. Look at the current methods of containment that they use on themselves: IGNORANCE, GREED, and SELFISHNESS. Their IGNORANCE is the primary weapon of containment. A great man once said, "The best way to hide something from Black people is to put it in a book." We live now in the Information Age. They have gained the opportunity to read any book on any subject through the efforts of their fight for freedom, yet they refuse to read. There are numerous books readily available at Borders, Barnes & Noble, and Amazon.com, not to mention their own Black Bookstores that provide solid blueprints to reach economic equality (which should have been their fight all along), but few read consistently, if at all. GREED is another powerful weapon of containment. Blacks, since the abolition of slavery, have had large amounts of money at their disposal. Last year they spent 10 billion dollars during Christmas, out of their 450 billion dollars in total yearly income (2.22%). Any of us can use them as our target market, for any business venture we care to dream up, no matter how outlandish, they will buy into it. Being primarily a consumer people, they function totally by greed. They continually want more, with little thought for saving or investing. They would rather buy some new sneaker than invest in starting a business. Some even neglect their children to have the latest Tommy or FUBU. And they still think that having a Mercedes, and a big house gives the "Status" or that they have achieved the American Dream. They are fools! The vast majority of their people are still in poverty because their greed holds them back from collectively making better communities. With the help of BET, and the rest of their black media that often broadcasts destructive images into their own homes, we will continue to see huge profits like those of Tommy and Nike. (Tommy Hilfiger has even jeered them, saying he doesn't want their money, and look at how the fools spend more with him than ever before!). They'll continue to show off to each other while we build solid communities with the profits from our businesses that we market to them. SELFISHNESS, ingrained in their minds through slavery, is one of the major ways we can continue to contain them. One of their own, Dubois said that there was an innate division in their culture. A "Talented Tenth" he called it. He was correct in his deduction that there are segments of their culture that has achieved some "form" of success. However, that segment missed the fullness of his work. They didn't read that the "Talented Tenth" was then responsible to aid the Non-Talented Ninety Percent in achieving a better life. Instead, that segment has created another class, a Buppie class that looks down on their people or aids them in a condescending manner. They will never achieve what we have. Their selfishness does not allow them to be able to work together on any project or endeavor of substance. When they do get together, their selfishness lets their egos get in the way of the goal. Their so-called help organizations seem to only want to promote their name without making any real change in their community. They are content to sit in conferences and conventions in our hotels, and talk about what they will do, while they award plaques to the best speakers, not the best doers. Is there no end to their selfishness? They steadfastly refuse to see that "TOGETHER EACH ACHIEVES MORE (TEAM)! They do not understand that they are no better than each other because of what they own. In fact, most of those Buppies are but one or two paychecks away from poverty. All of which is under the control of our pens in our offices and our boardrooms. Yes, will continue to contain them as long as they refuse to read, continue to buy anything they want, and keep thinking they are "helping" their communities by paying dues to organizations which do little other than hold lavish conventions in our hotels. By the way, don't worry about any of them reading this letter, remember, 'THEY DON'T READ!!!!' (Prove them wrong. Please pass this on!) Origins: Our earliest sighting of this polemic which excoriates "buppies" and other blacks for their presumed lack of literacy and bling-motivated consumer choices dates to October 2001, when it appeared as an unattributed item in the New York Beacon, a newspaper that focuses on African-American issues. It subsequently arrived in our inbox in January 2002 prefaced by the claim that it had been written by a Caucasian. In October 2002 we began receiving versions stating radio personality Dee Lee had read the item on air that morning on a New York station. (A "buppie," says the Urban Dictionary, is "A highly sophisticated and upper class black person. Usually a black city or suburban resident with a well-paid professional job and an affluent lifestyle: b[lack] + [y]uppie.") buppie While the question of who wrote the piece remains murky, we can rule out two people who have often been erroneously pointed to as its author. Radio personality Dee Lee, then of Philadelphia's Power 99 FM's "Dream Team" and Saint Louis' 100.3 "The Dee Lee Morning Show," firmly asserts he is neither the item's author nor did he ever read the piece on air. He said in a 28 January 2007 blog post that "I NEVER wrote nor read this article on NYC radio!!," adding that he "would in no way write or support such ignorance, especially degrading my own race." Dee Lee blog post Likely as a result of African-American radio jock Dee Lee's name having become attached to the screed, a Caucasian certified financial planner of the same name has been mistakenly pointed to as the source of the item. (The Internet-circulated piece, after all, always contained the claim that it had been written by a white person.) Dee Lee of Harvard Financial Educators, author of numerous books in the financial planning field, including Let's Talk Money, has seen the piece circulated with not only her name and business affiliation attached, but also her e-mail address and photo. She emphatically denies any association with the screed, stating "I did not author nor did I read the article in question on the radio." denies Although the actual author of the piece is still unknown to us, Dr. Arthur Lewin of the Black and Hispanics Studies Department at Bernard M. Baruch College of the City University of New York claims to have edited the article into its present form many years ago and titled it "They Are Still Our Slaves." However, pointing to him as the original author of the piece is problematic, given that he claims his involvement was limited to editing an item titled "How to Make an Economic or Ghetto Slave" into "They Are Still Our Slaves," which he states he "received" (but not how or from whom). As to what to make of the item, some analysts have expressed doubt that it was penned by a white racist, instead finding in the text reason to believe it the work of an African-American laboring to make a point. Said Tony Norman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: "Besides its didacticism, this letter is full of the racial self-loathing that permeates much so-called 'uplift' literature these days. There is no substantive critique of a community's behavior here. It relies on stereotypes to make what are, at best, questionable points. It was, in all likelihood, written by a black person who was trying a little too hard to be 'deep' and righteous." Barbara "deeply disturbing" Mikkelson Last updated: 22 June 2010 Smokes, Saundra. "E-Mail Decries Slave Mentality." The [Syracuse] Post-Standard. 1 December 2002 (p. C2). The New York Beacon. "Negativity or a Wake-Up Call: They Are Still Our Slaves." 17 October 2001.

True

written by a Caucasian. In October 2002 we began receiving versions stating radio personality Dee Lee had read the item on air that morning on a New York station. (A "buppie," says the Urban Dictionary, is "A highly sophisticated and upper class black person. Usually a black city or suburban resident with a well-paid professional job and an affluent lifestyle: b[lack] + [y]uppie.")Radio personality Dee Lee, then of Philadelphia's Power 99 FM's "Dream Team" and Saint Louis' 100.3 "The Dee Lee Morning Show," firmly asserts he is neither the item's author nor did he ever read the piece on air. He said in a 28 January 2007 blog post that "I NEVER wrote nor read this article on NYC radio!!," adding that he "would in no way write or support such ignorance, especially degrading my own race."Likely as a result of African-American radio jock Dee Lee's name having become attached to the screed, a Caucasian certified financial planner of the same name has been mistakenly pointed to as the source of the item. (The Internet-circulated piece, after all, always contained the claim that it had been written by a white person.) Dee Lee of Harvard Financial Educators, author of numerous books in the financial planning field, including Let's Talk Money, has seen the piece circulated with not only her name and business affiliation attached, but also her e-mail address and photo. She emphatically denies any association with the screed, stating "I did not author nor did I read the article in question on the radio."

FMD_train_1475

Did a Cornell Student Cut 37 Pounds Using Apple Cider Vinegar and Supplements?

04/27/2017

In April 2017, an advertisement for a diet product called "Refresh Garcinia Cambogia" or "Garcinia Slim" was disguised as a genuine news report and published on websites such as RunningEvolutions.com and The Platinum Beard. The article featured a student from Cornell University who claimed to have lost 31 pounds on a university budget. Amanda Haughman, a student at Cornell University, reported that she was able to drop 31 pounds in one month without spending any of her own money. Amanda is studying nutrition sciences at Cornell, and for a required research project, she thought it would be perfect to use university funds to discover how to 'hack' her weight loss. According to Amanda, "the most expensive part of it all was actually finding what worked. But the actual solution only cost about $5." "I had struggled with my weight my whole life. I tried things like Weight Watchers and Jenny Craig, which just didn't work as well as they promised. I am a single mom with a child at home, and I am also working towards my degree, so I don't have any time to be at the gym. When I was assigned this big research project, I saw it as a perfect opportunity to get a deeper look at the natural weight loss options available, and that is when I discovered the combination of Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and apple cider vinegar. The best part of it all is that I can tell my daughter is proud of me." - Amanda Haughman. These reports included a number of false and misleading claims. For instance, the lead photograph purportedly showing Amanda Haughman's tremendous weight loss is actually of Rachel Graham, who lost nearly 100 pounds in a year. Graham told Today in 2016 that she credited her weight loss to exercise and a healthy diet. Graham did not mention the alleged magic formula of apple cider vinegar and garcinia cambogia. When asked how she managed to lose almost 100 pounds in one year, Rachel Graham stated that the formula is simple: healthy food and exercise. "No secrets. No gimmicks. No quick fixes." She was also honest about the impact of going from 235 pounds to 144 pounds, especially the loose skin on her stomach, thighs, and arms. "I want people to know that it is 110 percent possible," Graham told TODAY. "I used to feel as though it wasn't, that I didn't have what it takes, and that it was just too far out of reach... If you want to make changes, it is completely possible with healthy food and exercise." This weight loss advertisement also fabricated an interview with CNN and claimed that the network ran a segment on this Cornell student's "amazing discovery." The article stated, "We sat down with Amanda to ask her more about how she found out about Refresh Garcinia Cambogia and whether or not that is all she used to lose 31 pounds so quickly." The supposed interview included questions and answers that never appeared on CNN. Not surprisingly, the Platinum Beard post links to a site selling Garcinia Cambogia. The Running Evolutions article links instead to what appears to be borrowed content from Barry's Boot Camp, a personal training program. We reached out to Barry's Boot Camp for comment but have not yet received a reply. Although we can't speak to the effectiveness of drinking apple cider vinegar with Refresh Garcinia Cambogia, we can say that this text did not originate from a genuine news article. This is an advertisement that used a fabricated interview, falsified claims, and an unrelated photograph to sell a diet product. Pawlowski, A. "Mom gets real about weight loss: Here's how she shed 90 pounds in a year." Today, 3 October 2016.

False

In April 2017, an advertisement for a diet product called "Refresh Garcinia Cambogia" or "Garicinia Slim" was disguised as a genuine news report and published on web sites such as Running Evolutions.com and The Platinum Beard: These reports included a number of false and misleading claims. For instance, the lead photograph purportedly showing Amanda Haughman's tremendous weight loss is actually Rachel Graham, who lost nearly 100 pounds in a year. Graham told Today in 2016 that she credited her weight loss to exercise and a healthy diet. Graham did not mention the alleged magic formula of apple cider vinegar and garcinia cambogia:

FMD_train_1490

Is This a Newly Hatched Dragon?

02/28/2016

On 29 February 2016, an image purportedly showing a newly hatched baby dragon was shared on Facebook: News Flash... Dragons are to be reintroduced to Wales after an absence of more than 1,000 years. Local conservation groups say they are pleased with the move that will put a large predator back in the food chain. There have been concerns expressed by the farming community due to the risk of predation on livestock, but the Welsh assembly states they are willing to pay compensation to farmers who can prove their losses. The other danger associated with the dragons' eating habits, specifically their preference for virgins, is not thought to be a problem, as they went extinct in Wales many years ago anyway. The above-displayed photo does not, of course, show a real baby dragon. This image was created for a 2008 Photoshop contest on the website Worth 1000. Worth1000.com, which has since moved to DesignCrowd.com, asked digital artists to create their own version of the mythical creature: Dragons. Small and cuddly or big and nasty, Chinese or European, furry or scaly, slick or rough, feathered wings or bat wings, fire-breathing or smoke-snorting, reptile head or lion head, intelligent or instinctual, ancient or modern, living or robotic. Never has there been a fantasy creature so revered and yet so reviled. The rules are as follows: create a dragon of your own making. No illustrations, no modifying someone else's dragon. You may not use sources from fantasy art. You may use photos of dinosaur models, but (as always) the standard copyright rules apply. In addition to the image's source (a site dedicated to digital art contests) and the fact that dragons don't exist, the creator of the digital baby dragon provided the source images used. This is not the first time that rumors suggesting dragons are actually real (complete with "photo proof") have swirled around the internet. In March 2015, images of a dragon sculpture were shared as authentic, and in June 2015, a digital artist added wings to a picture of a Satanic Leaf-Tailed Gecko and then passed it off as a photo of a real dragon.

False

On 29 February 2016, an image purportedly showing a newly hatched baby dragon was shared on Facebook: News Flash..... Dragons to be reintroduced to Wales after an absence of more than a 1000 years , local conservation groups say they are pleased by the move that will put a large preditor back in the food chain .... There have been concern shown by the farming community due to the risk of predation to livestock but the Welsh assembly say they are willing to pay compesation to farmers who can prove loss, the other danger with the dragons eating habits of taking virgins is not thought to be a problem as they went extinct in Wales may years ago anyway...... The above-displayed photo does not, of course, show a real baby dragon. This image was created for a 2008Photoshop contest on the web siteWorth 1000.Worth1000.com,which has since moved toDesignCrowd.com,asked digital artists to create their ownversion of the mythical creature:Dragons. Small and cuddly or big and nasty, Chinese or European, furry or scaly, slick or rough, feathered wings or bat wings, fire breathing or smoke snorting, reptile head or lion head, intelligent or instinctual, ancient or modern, living or robotic. Never has there been a fantasy creature so revered and yet so reviled.This is not the first time that rumors thatdragons actually arereal (complete with "photo proof")haveswirled around the internet. In March 2015, images of a dragon sculpture were shared as authentic, and in June 2015, a digital artist added wings to a picture of a Satanic Leaf-Tailed Geckoand thenpassed it off as a photo of a real dragon.

FMD_train_215

Bush on Ribs

02/19/2004

Claim: Transcript records President Bush's remarks to reporters at a New Mexico restaurant. Example: [whitehouse.gov, 2004] Remarks by the President to the Press PoolNothin' Fancy CafeRoswell, New Mexico 11:25 A.M. MST THE PRESIDENT: I need some ribs. Q Mr. President, how are you? THE PRESIDENT: I'm hungry and I'm going to order some ribs. Q What would you like? THE PRESIDENT: Whatever you think I'd like. Q Sir, on homeland security, critics would say you simply haven't spent enough to keep the country secure. THE PRESIDENT: My job is to secure the homeland and that's exactly what we're going to do. But I'm here to take somebody's order. That would be you, Stretch what would you like? Put some of your high-priced money right here to try to help the local economy. You get paid a lot of money, you ought to be buying some food here. It's part of how the economy grows. You've got plenty of money in your pocket, and when you spend it, it drives the economy forward. So what would you like to eat? Q Right behind you, whatever you order. THE PRESIDENT: I'm ordering ribs. David, do you need a rib? Q But Mr. President THE PRESIDENT: Stretch, thank you, this is not a press conference. This is my chance to help this lady put some money in her pocket. Let me explain how the economy works. When you spend money to buy food it helps this lady's business. It makes it more likely somebody is going to find work. So instead of asking questions, answer mine: are you going to buy some food? Q Yes. THE PRESIDENT: Okay, good. What would you like? Q Ribs. THE PRESIDENT: Ribs? Good. Let's order up some ribs. Q What do you think of the democratic field, sir? THE PRESIDENT: See, his job is to ask questions, he thinks my job is to answer every question he asks. I'm here to help this restaurant by buying some food. Terry, would you like something? Q An answer. Q Can we buy some questions? THE PRESIDENT: Obviously these people they make a lot of money and they're not going to spend much. I'm not saying they're overpaid, they're just not spending any money. Q Do you think it's all going to come down to national security, sir, this election? THE PRESIDENT: One of the things David does, he asks a lot of questions, and they're good, generally. END 11:29 A.M. MST Origins: This transcript, archived at the White House web site, certainly reads as one of the more unusual Presidential press conferences in recent memory. But much of the oddness stems from the fact that the transcript provides no context for the remarks contained therein; a little background helps to make it more understandable. White House After delivering his State of the Union address on 20 January 2004, President Bush undertook a two-day, three-state swing through Ohio, Arizona, and New Mexico. The morning of 22 January found the President in Roswell, New Mexico, where he delivered a 40-plus minute speech at the town's Convention and Civic Center in front of 1,800 cadets from the New Mexico Military Institute, law enforcement officers studying at the International Law Enforcement Academy's graduate center and the Federal Law Enforcement Training center, and local residents. The President wrapped up his speech a bit before 11:30 AM, and he then surprised many Roswell residents by sending his motorcade to the Nuthin' Special Cafe on Main Street described as "a local eatery known more for its 50-cent beer than its food" for lunch. After entering the restaurant and shaking some hands, the President decided to give the local economy a boost by strolling behind the counter and cajoling members of the traveling press into ordering some food. A couple of White House correspondents, David Gregory of NBC (referred to in the transcript as "Stretch") and Terry Moran of ABC, tried to turn the occasion into an impromptu press conference, but President Bush held firm, stating in no uncertain terms that he was there to take food orders, not to answer questions from the press. According to cafe owner Armando Aceves, the President ordered pork ribs and buttermilk pie and autographed a menu. However, Jim Lakely of the Washington Times, a designated pool reporter for the Roswell trip, noted that the President was unsuccessful in convincing the reporters in question to purchase any ribs themselves. Once President Bush and his entourage were back on-board Air Force One with their take-out orders, someone from the White House staff sent some ribs back to the press corps. There wasn't enough to go around, though. A letter writer to the Albuquerque Journal later noted that President Bush did not leave a tip when he departed. But, as that newspaper reported, the Nuthin' Fancy Cafe staff still ended up with a larger payment than they were expecting: "But you don't expect a tip from take-out," said Beverly Patterson, one of the servers who helped with the president's order of ribs, corn bread, butter and honey. "And how many other people can say they had the pleasure and honor of having the president visit their place?" adds Patterson, who has worked at the cafe for three years. Bush paid for the order with $30 in cash. Patterson says the president called later from Air Force One and said, "You didn't charge me enough, and I'm going to send more money." But Edward Zavala, Nuthin' Fancy's manager, says he told the president they didn't want any more money. "We were willing to give him the meal free, but the president wanted to pay," Zavala adds. "We didn't care for the money. This was a once-in-a-lifetime deal." Last updated: 19 August 2007 Sources: Coleman, Michael. "From These Ribs ." Albuquerque Journal. 24 January 2004 (p. A8). Hoffman, Leslie. "Bush Touts Policies, Focuses on War on Terrorism During Roswell Visit." The Associated Press. 22 January 2004. Moskos, Harry. "Mr. Bush Paid Bill in Cash." Albuquerque Journal.. 8 February 2004 (p. C1).

True

Origins: This transcript, archived at the White House web site, certainly reads as one of the more unusual Presidential press conferences in recent memory. But much of the oddness stems from the fact that the transcript provides no context for the remarks contained therein; a little background helps to make it more understandable.

FMD_train_164

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

05/18/2020

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_1783

Warning about pedophiles on Facebook

09/15/2014

Claim: Predators, pedophiles, and child trafficking rings are using Facebook to source new victims by friending trusting parents and mining images posted of their children. Example: [Collected on Facebook, September 2014] A guy sends you a friend request. You don't know him, but he's got a cute profile pic, so you accept. It's baby girl's first day of school! She looks SO cute in her new outfit you just have to take a picture and put it on Facebook so all your friends and family can see. You're so excited dropping her off that you "check in" to her school on Fb saying "I can't believe how big she's gotten. Time sure flies. One proud momma/daddy right here!"... Meanwhile, the mystery guy whose friend request you hurriedly accepted earlier this morning is saving that picture you posted of your daughter in her cute new outfit to his phone and texting it to 60 other grown men across the world with the caption "Caucasian female. Age 5. Brown hair, green eyes. $2,500." Not only did you provide a picture of your little girl to a child trafficker, you've handed him the name and exact location of her school on a silver cyber platter. You go to pick her up at 3:00 this afternoon, but she's nowhere to be found. Little do you know, your precious baby girl was sold to a 43-year-old pedophile before you even stepped foot off campus this morning, and now she's on her way to South Africa with a bag over her head, confused, terrified and crying because a man she's never seen before picked her up from school, and now she doesn't know where her parents are, where she's going, or what's gonna happen to her. STOP ADDING STRANGERS ON FACEBOOK. Origins: In September 2014, the post above (without original attribution) went viral on Facebook. While this iteration is a new one, panic over internet strangers is as old as the internet itself, and warnings such as this have largely morphed from email forwards to Facebook shares. panic over internet strangers In May and June of 2015, the story received a second wave of interest after it was published to the website StylishLisa on 27 May 2015. On 30 May 2015 the message appeared on the Facebook page Lil' Red Warriors, but was later deleted after Facebook commenters correctly identified the photograph's origin on a page about children's hairstyles. The photo and its claim were later published verbatim to the Facebook page of Cyn Malvita, from where it was shared hundreds of thousands of times. A cached version of the iteration involving the hairstyling picture is embedded below: published Lil' Red Warriors deleted children's hairstyles Cyn Malvita The Facebook post currently in circulation bears some resemblance to a well-traveled warning from years back describing a similar danger. While the premise is similar, the stated risk has evolved, incorporating Facebook's open and share-friendly nature as the door through which rampant child predators will enter your life and summarily terrorize you. well-traveled warning This particular warning has some unpleasant undertones in its telling, suggesting that female users are too readily tempted by a "cute" potential predator to consider the safety of their children. It also tacitly condemns parents (mothers, presumably in particular) for even mentioning their children in hawking its highly improbable, sanctimonious premise. Facebook and similar social media sites have ushered in a new level of panic when it comes to internet safety, given that the social network requires users to supply accurate information about their true identities and real names to use the service. While many users flout this aspect of the site's terms and services, many others have been banned temporarily or permanently for using aliases in place of real names. Reading the circulating post above might lead one to believe that the danger is very real and omnipresent, but the scenario presented is one that is exceedingly unlikely. Among other implausibilities, this warning makes it sound as though the bad guys are stymied in their search for victims and don't know where to look for kids to abduct until they see pictures of them on Facebook. But potential abductors' seeing a Facebook photo of a particular child who attends a given school does nothing to facilitate the snatching of random children for sale to pedophiles would-be kidnappers don't need Facebook photos, as they could simply lie in wait outside just about any school and try to grab children as such opportunities presented themselves. Aside from that, first and foremost, most schools nowadays do not release children to parties who have not been explicitly granted permission and had their names recorded on an authorized list, a fact to which any parent who has ever needed a friend to make a last-minute school pickup can attest. Secondly, while the risk of child abduction and trafficking may exist, children are far, far more likely to be endangered by a relative or other "trusted" adult than a random Facebook contact. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the most recent statistics reflect a far different danger than the one described above. Of 800,000 children reported missing, 200,000 were abducted by relatives, 58,000 were kids taken by nonfamily members, and only 115 missing child reports were considered "stereotypical" abductions involving a complete stranger with intent to harm or keep the child. National Center for Missing & Exploited Children A lengthy report on Child Exploitation Prevention presented to Congress by the Justice Department in 2010 [PDF] further delves into the profiles of predators involved in child abuse and trafficking. According to the data presented, the vast majority of children harmed in this manner are either introduced or otherwise victimized by family members or other trusted adults such as babysitters, coaches, or family friends. Only four percent of victims identified were exploited or abused by an adult not previously known to the child or their family. PDF In the cases examined, abuse typically occurred over the course of years and involved "grooming" and other behaviors designed to created compliance. Child victims were not at risk of being immediately whisked to Africa by a strange Facebook user, but rather more likely placed in harm's way by the people meant to ensure their safety and care. On rare occasions child predators may mine publicly posted photos of children for personal use or trade, and posted Facebook pictures and locations might facilitate a kidnapping if the abductors were seeking to grab a specific child (rather than trolling for random victims), but no evidence suggests the posting of kids' photos on Facebook has resulted in a general increase of kidnapping or abuse of children. Last updated: 4 June 2015

NEI

Origins: In September 2014, the post above (without original attribution) went viral on Facebook. While this iteration is a new one, panic over internet strangers is as old as the internet itself, and warnings such as this have largely morphed from email forwards to Facebook shares.In May and June of 2015, the story received a second wave of interest after it was published to the website StylishLisa on 27 May 2015. On 30 May 2015 the message appeared on the Facebook page Lil' Red Warriors, but was later deleted after Facebook commenters correctly identified the photograph's origin on a page about children's hairstyles. The photo and its claim were later published verbatim to the Facebook page of Cyn Malvita, from where it was shared hundreds of thousands of times. A cached version of the iteration involving the hairstyling picture is embedded below:The Facebook post currently in circulation bears some resemblance to a well-traveled warning from years back describing a similar danger. While the premise is similar, the stated risk has evolved, incorporating Facebook's open and share-friendly nature as the door through which rampant child predators will enter your life and summarily terrorize you.to be endangered by a relative or other "trusted" adult than a random Facebook contact. According to the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children, the most recent statistics reflect a far different danger than the one described above. Of 800,000 children reported missing, 200,000 were abducted by relatives, 58,000 were kids taken by nonfamily members, and only 115 missing child reports were considered "stereotypical" abductions involving a complete stranger with intent to harm or keep the child.A lengthy report on Child Exploitation Prevention presented to Congress by the Justice Department in 2010 [PDF] further delves into the profiles of predators involved in child abuse and trafficking. According to the data presented, the vast majority of children harmed in this manner are either introduced or otherwise victimized by family members or other trusted adults such as babysitters, coaches, or family friends. Only four percent of victims identified were exploited or abused by an adult not previously known to the child or their family.

FMD_train_22

Did Trump Tweet That If 'Dow Joans' Tanked, the President Should Be Shot Out of a Cannon?

02/05/2018

On 5 February 2018, Shaun Usher, the owner of the blog "Letters of Note" posted an image on Twitter that purported to show Donald Trump opining that any president presiding over the United States during a stock market crash of more than 1,000 points should be "shot out of a cannon." blog image Although the image was intended to poke fun at now-President Trump's prolific Twitter use and his timeline that has offered a running joke that puts his past criticisms of his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, in context with current events (such as a precipitous stock market drop a few hours before), this tweet was not real: before Sweet mother of god. Not for one second did I think people would believe that to be genuine. Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 omg it's everywhere. What have I done. Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 siri can i be arrested for making a fake tweet Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 February 5, 2018 In a message sent via Twitter, Usher confirmed he was the tweet's author and that it was not real. He told us: Naively thought it too ridiculous to be believable. Says a lot, really. Was going to delete it but it was everywhere within minutes: feels like I need to leave it up in its place of birth. President Trump has legitimately tweeted about the stock market in the past, however: tweeted Creating fake tweets is extremely easy and can spread virally within minutes as Usher has now demonstrated, even if unintentionally. fake tweets

False

On 5 February 2018, Shaun Usher, the owner of the blog "Letters of Note" posted an image on Twitter that purported to show Donald Trump opining that any president presiding over the United States during a stock market crash of more than 1,000 points should be "shot out of a cannon."Although the image was intended to poke fun at now-President Trump's prolific Twitter use and his timeline that has offered a running joke that puts his past criticisms of his predecessor, former President Barack Obama, in context with current events (such as a precipitous stock market drop a few hours before), this tweet was not real: Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018 Shaun Usher (@ShaunUsher) February 5, 2018President Trump has legitimately tweeted about the stock market in the past, however:Creating fake tweets is extremely easy and can spread virally within minutes as Usher has now demonstrated, even if unintentionally.

FMD_train_1316

Was Jared Kushner Removing Tweets Following Reports on Trump's Taxes?

09/28/2020

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

False

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here.On Sept. 27, 2020, The New York Times published a report after obtaining several years of U.S. President Donald Trump's tax returns.As news broke that Trump had paid just $750 in federal income tax in 2016 and 2017 no federal income taxes in 10 of the past 15 years in addition to the fact that he took an approximate $70,000 deduction for hairstyling during "The Apprentice," and that he has more than $300 million worth of loans coming due, a rumor started to circulate on social media that White House senior adviser Jared Kushner had quietly deleted all of his tweets from his Twitter account:The above-displayed tweet contains a genuine screenshot of the @JaredKushner Twitter account. This account has been online since 2009, but it has been used sparingly by its owner. Archived pages show that this account posted three messages back in March 2011 none of which was related to taxes but was then inactive for at least three years. The few messages that were posted to this account were deleted sometime between 2014 and 2016, and no new messages have been posted since then. This isn't the first time that someone has stumbled across Kushner's Twitter account in the aftermath of a controversy, noticed that it was barren, and then incorrectly assumed that Kushner had recently scrubbed it clean. In October 2017, shortly after Special Counsel Robert S. Mueller III revealed charges against former Trump presidential campaign chair Paul Manafort and two other campaign officials, social media users noted then that Kushner's Twitter account was suspiciously void of content, and falsely claimed that he had recently deleted all of his tweets.A few months later, when it was reported that Mueller may have interviewed Kushner in the course of his investigation into Russia's meddling in the 2016 presidential election, this false rumor again was circulated on social media:

FMD_train_738

Ted Cruz Erupts in Hooters After Expense-Account Master Card Refused

10/03/2013

Claim: Senator Ted Cruz went into a shouting tirade after a Hooters restaurant refused to accept his government expense account credit card. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2013] Did Ted Cruz cause a scene at a restaurant because his expense card was declined? Origins: On 29 September 2013, the web site The Lapine published an article positing that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas went into a shouting tirade after a Hooters restaurant refused to accept his government expense account credit card as payment for a $53 tab: article Following a live radio interview today, Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz and host Rush Limbaugh immediately left the studio and went for lunch at a nearby Hooters but the restaurant refused the Senator's government expense-account credit card and asked that the $53 tab be paid in cash. That set Senator Cruz off according to media reports. "He got the hiccups he was so mad," Hooters' assistant manager Kyle Lane told the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. After shouting at Hooters' waitresses and management for an extended period, Cruz admitted he had no cash and was forced to borrow the money from a FOX News reporter. Soon afterwards links and excerpts referencing that article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered it mistaking it for a genuine news item. However, the article was just a spoof that originated with The Lapine, a Canadian-based satirical web site. (Clues to the site's nature are that its name is taken from a language spoken by rabbit characters in the novel Watership Down, and that the site's motto is "Rabbits eat Onions.") The Lapine Other stories published by The Lapine include "Atheist Suicide Bomber Kills Eighteen Agnostics," "Dalai Lama Spotted Wearing 'Leave Justin Alone' Button," and "Arizona Gun Buyers Offered Free Flag Tattoo." Last updated: 3 October 2013

False

Origins: On 29 September 2013, the web site The Lapine published an article positing that Senator Ted Cruz of Texas went into a shouting tirade after a Hooters restaurant refused to accept his government expense account credit card as payment for a $53 tab:that article were being circulated via social media, with many of those who encountered it mistaking it for a genuine news item. However, the article was just a spoof that originated with The Lapine, a Canadian-based satirical web site. (Clues to the site's nature are that its name is taken from a language spoken by rabbit characters in the novel Watership Down, and that the site's motto is "Rabbits eat Onions.")

FMD_train_1758

Is Sheryl Underwood Leaving 'The Talk' After Making CBS 'Furious' for Endorsing Weight Loss Gummies?

11/21/2023

In November 2023, multiple Facebook ads were displayed to users that led to an article that bore the People magazine logo and claimed that Sheryl Underwood, the longtime co-host of "The Talk," would be leaving the TV talk show to work on expanding her own line of keto gummies for weight loss. However, this was not true. Underwood has nothing to do with any keto gummies for weight loss, nor did People magazine ever publish any such story. Underwood was simply the latest person in a long line of famous people who had had their image and likeness used without permission to sell keto gummies. Further, this false rumor that mentioned Underwood led to a dangerous scam that could potentially cost victims thousands of dollars per year. a long line of famous people One version of the Facebook ad claimed, "Producers are furious that she came forward." The headline in the ads read, "Sheryl Abandons 'The Talk' After Confessing Her Trick." Two of the false Facebook ads that promoted the scam. These ads led to a fake People magazine article on scam websites including emperorsland.pro, sizzlingpear.pro, mindfulmovement.pro and chillytreats.info. (We were unable to provide an archived link to the article since scammers design these websites so that the scam version of the page is cloaked from prying eyes that is, unless users specifically came from a Facebook ad.) This is not a true story, nor did People.com ever publish any such article. The fake People magazine article, which was nothing more than fiction and a scam, began as follows: Sheryl Underwood Confirms She Is Leaving 'The Talk' After Her Accidental 'Live' Confession On-Air... The host said that it was 'time for a break', but she may actually have bigger things in mind. (People) - Sheryl Underwood, the 60-year-old host on CBS's show 'The Talk', shocked everyone when she announced her departure from the show after 12 record-breaking years on-air. Sheryl, who has earned the reputation of being one of the most business savvy women in the industry, made sponsors (and CBS) FURIOUS. Why? Because Sheryl failed to disclose her new weight loss line to the network. Sheryl's new company is actually a HUGE competitor to CBS's current sponsor Weight Watchers because Sheryl's product is 90% cheaper and five times more effective than Weight Watchers's competing product. According to sources, CBS made Sheryl decide on which direction she was going to focus on in the future. Being so turned off by the reaction of the network and their power move she has decided to pursue her new weight loss line and dream. The scam article went on to falsely claim that other celebrities had joined with Underwood to promote the products, whether they be Belly Blast Keto Gummies, Total Fit Keto Gummies or other products. It is a fact that no celebrities have ever endorsed keto gummies that are purportedly intended for use in weight loss. Websites that promote sales of keto gummies for weight loss usually lack information about the true creators of the products and the source of where they were packaged. In the past, some consumers who fell victim to these scams told Snopes that the post office box numbers included in return addresses for the products don't exist. The rabbit hole for keto gummies goes even deeper, however. Two odd scenarios have been laid out by numerous victims of the scams, which usually involve monthly subscription fees often reported as being around $200 or more, or around $2,400 per year. Some consumers said that they never ordered the products but kept receiving shipments that they had no way of returning, due to fake return addresses. On the flip side, other customers said that they received charges for the products on their credit card statements despite never having ordered them, and then never received any products in the mail. Further, listings for keto gummies for weight loss on Amazon.com and Walmart.com often feature the words "Shark" and "Tank," although not consecutively as "Shark Tank." The two words are included in product listings on Amazon.com and Walmart.com so that any customers searching online for keto gummies with the words "Shark Tank" after those same customers saw false claims that said the TV show's investors endorsed the products would then fall victim to the scam and purchase the products based on the "Shark Tank" lie. Again, to be clear, no investors associated with "Shark Tank" ever endorsed gummies. false claims If any readers have been victimized by these scams, we recommend contacting your credit card company immediately, reporting fraud to the FTC and also searching the U.S. Better Business Bureau's (BBB) website to perform a search for the product name associated with the purchase on your account or the product that arrived at your doorstep, so that you can find the company or LLC connected with the scam. reporting fraud to the FTC website Liles, Jordan. Shark Tank Keto Gummies Weight Loss Reviews Are a Scam. Snopes, 14 Mar. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/shark-tank-keto-gummies-weight-loss-reviews/.

False

However, this was not true. Underwood has nothing to do with any keto gummies for weight loss, nor did People magazine ever publish any such story. Underwood was simply the latest person in a long line of famous people who had had their image and likeness used without permission to sell keto gummies. Further, this false rumor that mentioned Underwood led to a dangerous scam that could potentially cost victims thousands of dollars per year.Further, listings for keto gummies for weight loss on Amazon.com and Walmart.com often feature the words "Shark" and "Tank," although not consecutively as "Shark Tank." The two words are included in product listings on Amazon.com and Walmart.com so that any customers searching online for keto gummies with the words "Shark Tank" after those same customers saw false claims that said the TV show's investors endorsed the products would then fall victim to the scam and purchase the products based on the "Shark Tank" lie. Again, to be clear, no investors associated with "Shark Tank" ever endorsed gummies.If any readers have been victimized by these scams, we recommend contacting your credit card company immediately, reporting fraud to the FTC and also searching the U.S. Better Business Bureau's (BBB) website to perform a search for the product name associated with the purchase on your account or the product that arrived at your doorstep, so that you can find the company or LLC connected with the scam.

FMD_train_1736

Did Nostradamus Predict the COVID-19 Pandemic?

03/20/2020

In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic that broke out globally in the first part of 2020, some social media users shared what they claimed was a prediction of that pandemic made in 1551 by the 16th-century astrologer (and alleged soothsayer) known as Nostradamus: "There will be a twin year (2020) from which will arise a queen (corona) who will come from the east (China) and who will spread a plague (virus) in the darkness of night, on a country with seven hills (Italy) and will transform the twilight of men into dust (death), to destroy and ruin the world. It will be the end of the world economy as you know it." Michel de Nostradame was an astrologer who lived in France in the 1500s and is most famous today for the poetic quatrains he wrote for his book, "Les Prophéties," which many enthusiasts now claim foretold various significant historical events. Nostradamus wrote many passages that are so general (and obscure) that, with a little imagination (and some liberal interpretations from the original French), people have claimed he has "predicted" nearly every significant event since the mid-16th century. However, this particular viral prediction was not expressed in quatrain form, nor could we find anything like it published in "Les Prophéties." We also found no mention of this supposed prophecy prior to the events of early 2020, which generally indicates it is a modern hoax.

False

But this particular viral prediction was not expressed in quatrain form, nor could we find anything like it published in "Les Prophties." We also found no mention of this supposed prophecy prior to the events of early 2020, which generally indicates it is a modern hoax.

FMD_train_812

Obama Required Banks to Lend Money to Poor People

10/03/2008

In 1994, a class-action lawsuit was filed against Citibank, demanding that loans be made to poor people and others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back. The basis of the lawsuit was the 14th Amendment, which requires "fair and equal" treatment for all citizens. The legal theory was that failing to loan money to poor, indigent, or unemployed people was, on its face, a discriminatory act by lending institutions. Thousands of loans were processed, and of course, many went into default, partly explaining why we are in the financial mess we are in. It is easy for some people to point the finger of blame at President George Bush for this crisis because he is sitting in the hot seat. What many people do not know is that the suit was filed during the Clinton Administration. The lawyer filing the suit was none other than Barack Hussein Obama. This item seeks to shift much of the blame for America's current economic woes onto Barack Obama by claiming that as a young lawyer, Obama filed a lawsuit requiring financial institutions to lend money to "poor people" and "others who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." Although there is a vague element of fact underlying this politicking, the piece quoted above is woefully incorrect in all its particulars. The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a Black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives—a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay. Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages. Although Barack Obama was involved with the Buycks-Roberson case, he did not file the lawsuit, nor was he the lead attorney in the matter. He was a junior member of an eight-lawyer team that worked on the case; Obama admits he played a mostly behind-the-scenes role at his law firm, Miner Barnhill & Galland. He researched the law, drafted motions, prepared for depositions, and did other less glamorous work during his three years full-time and eight years "of counsel" to the firm. "He wrote lots of substantial memos, but he didn't try any cases," said Judson Miner, a partner in the firm who was Obama's boss. Obama represented Calvin Roberson in a 1994 lawsuit against Citibank, charging the bank systematically denied mortgages to African-American applicants and others from minority neighborhoods. "I don't recall him ever standing up and giving an impassioned speech; it was a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff," said Fay Clayton, the lead lawyer on the case. "He was the very junior lawyer in that case," said attorney Robert Kriss. "He had just graduated from law school. I don't recall him being in court at any time I was there. I was the lead lawyer for Citibank, and he was not very visible to me." Kriss, Clayton, and every other co-counsel and opposing counsel interviewed for this story praised Obama's legal ability, temperament, and everything about his courtroom demeanor, even though they agree he did not say much in the courtroom. On February 23, 1995, Obama billed 2 hours and 50 minutes for an appearance before Judge Ruben Castillo on behalf of his client and also for reviewing some documents in advance of a deposition. That cost Citibank—which ultimately had to pay the winning side's fees—$467 at Obama's hourly rate of $165. Miner commanded the higher rate of $285 an hour. During his appearance before the judge, Obama said he would need more time to file a response to a motion, and the judge agreed. That was all Obama said during the half-hour hearing. His final bill on the case was 138 hours, or $23,000. Last updated: September 5, 2012. Associated Press. "Some Cases Obama Worked on in His Career as an Attorney." February 20, 2007.

False

The 1994 case of Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank Fed. Sav. Bank had nothing to do with requiring lenders to do business with people "who could not show proof that they could pay the money back." The case was a class-action lawsuit against Citibank Federal Savings initiated by a black Chicago woman, Selma Buycks-Roberson, who claimed she was unfairly denied a mortgage based on her race. The lawsuit sought to end the practice of redlining, a discriminatory practice by which banks, insurance companies, and other business institutions refuse or limit loans, mortgages, insurance, etc., based solely on the geographic area in which the applicant lives (a practice that commonly excludes minorities in inner-city neighborhoods, regardless of their income or ability to pay). Specifically, the lawsuit charged that Citibank "rejected loan applications of minority applicants while approving loan applications filed by white applicants with similar financial characteristics and credit histories." The case was eventually settled out of court, with some class members receiving cash payments and Citibank agreeing to help ease the way for low- and moderate-income people to apply for mortgages.

FMD_train_674

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

12/17/2021

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_897

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

07/17/2020

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_166

Snowden was declared deceased by his partner in Russia.

08/10/2016

On 10 August 2016, the unreliable website Disclose.tv published an article reporting that former National Security Agency (NSA) employee and whistleblower Edward Snowden was "pronounced dead by his girlfriend" in Russia. Days after Snowden's rumored death was debunked by journalist Glenn Greenwald and a Russian lawyer, a report emerged claiming that his mistress and girlfriend had confirmed the leaker's demise. Quoting MKRU News of Russia, a conservative site called Get Off the BS stated that Snowden's mistress said he was killed Saturday by a drunken, knife-wielding Buryat man in the Republic of Buryatia. The article from which the claim was aggregated was presented in the style of fiction rather than reporting and was interspersed with salacious fabrications. Late Monday afternoon, the mistress of the infamous Edward Snowden announced his death, alleging that he was killed this past Saturday by a drunken, knife-wielding Buryat man in the Republic of Buryatia. MKRU News reported that a drunken man, who for some reason took exception to a man, presumably Snowden, saving his wife from drowning, attacked a woman by slicing her neck and stabbed her male companion in the thigh, who later died from severe blood loss in a local hospital. The injured were taken to a nearby hospital, where one of them died as a result of extensive blood loss. The unidentified man was allegedly 27 years old. (Snowden, who was born on June 21, 1983, would be 33 now.) That outlet connected the purported death of Snowden to a cryptic, since-deleted tweet issued by the exiled contractor on 5 August 2016. While it was true that the disappearing tweet was interpreted by many as an ominous signal, an insurance key, or a dead man's switch, journalist Glenn Greenwald, who works closely with Snowden to publish leaked material, quickly confirmed that Snowden is alive and well. Disclose.tv and Get Off the BS are sites known for publishing outlandish fabrications and fake news in order to attract readers. On 15 August 2016, Snowden reappeared on Twitter, putting concerns for his safety to rest.

False

On 10 August 2016, the unreliable web site Disclose.tv published an article reporting that former National Security Agency (NSA) employee and whistleblower Edward Snowden was "pronounced dead by his girlfriend" in Russia:The article from which the claim was aggregated was presented in the style of fiction rather than reporting and was interspersed with salacious fabrications:That outlet connected the purported death of Snowden to a cryptic, since-deleted tweet issued by the exiled contractor on 5 August 2016:While it was true the disappearing tweet was interpreted by many as an ominous signal, an insurance key, or a dead man's switch, journalist Glenn Greenwald (who works closely with Snowden to publish leaked material) quickly confirmed that Snowden is alive and well:@HannahhhBeth @Snowden He's fine Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) August 6, 2016Disclose.tv and Get Off the BS are sites known for publishing outlandish fabrications and fake news in order to attract readers. On 15 August 2016 Snowden reappeared on Twitter, putting concerns for his safety to rest:The world's first confirmed, publicly-ID'd victim of NSA's #PRISM: a pro-democracy activist. https://t.co/C7GPiojhHT pic.twitter.com/GDvTDhyBHg Edward Snowden (@Snowden) August 15, 2016

FMD_train_61

Where Did Obama's Money Come From?

10/03/2008

Claim: Barack Obama's education and house were paid for with money obtained from questionable sources. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2008] Written by a female Obama supporter who voted for him for president. Legitimate Questions To All My Friends, this is every important, please take the time to read it. This election has me very worried. So many things to consider. About a year ago I would have voted for Obama. I have changed my mind three times since than. I watch all the news channels, jumping from one to another. I must say this drives my husband crazy. But, I feel if you view MSNBC, CNN, and Fox News, you might get some middle ground to work with. About six months ago, I started thinking 'where did the money come from for Obama'. I have four daughters who went to College, and we were middle class, and money was tight. We (including my girls) worked hard and there were lots of student loans. I started looking into Obama's life. Around 1979 Obama started college at Occidental in California. He is very open about his two years at Occidental, he tried all kinds of drugs and was wasting his time but, even though he had a brilliant mind, did not apply himself to his studies. 'Barry' (that was the name he used all his life) during this time had two roommates, Muhammad Hasan Chandoo and Wahid Hamid, both from Pakistan. During the summer of 1981, after his second year in college, he made a 'round the world' trip. Stopping to see his mother in Indonesia, next Hyderabad in India, three weeks in Karachi, Pakistan where he stayed with his roommate's family, then off to Africa to visit his father's family. My question - Where did he get the money for this trip? Nether I, nor any one of my children would have had money for a trip like this when they where in college. When he came back he started school at Columbia University in New York. It is at this time he wants everyone to call him Barack not Barry. Do you know what the tuition is at Columbia? It's not cheap! to say the least. Where did he get money for tuition? Student Loans? Maybe. After Columbia, he went to Chicago to work as a Community Organizer for $12,000 a year. Why Chicago? Why not New York? He was already living in New York. By 'chance' he met Antoin 'Tony' Rezko, born in Aleppo Syria, and a real estate developer in Chicago. Rezko has been convicted of fraud and bribery this year. Rezko, was named 'Entrepreneur of the Decade' by the Arab-American Business and Professional Association'. About two years later, Obama entered Harvard Law School. Do you have any idea what tuition is for Harvard Law School? Where did he get the money for Law School? More student loans? After Law school, he went back to Chicago. Rezko offered him a job, which he turned down. But, he did take a job with Davis, Miner, Barnhill & Galland. Guess what? They represented 'Rezar' which Rezko's firm. Rezko was one of Obama's first major financial contributors when he ran for office in Chicago. In 2003, Rezko threw an early fundraiser for Obama which Chicago Tribune reporter David Mendelland claims was instrumental in providing Obama with 'seed money' for his U.S. Senate race. In 2005, Obama purchased a new home in Kenwoood District of Chicago for $1.65 million (less than asking price). With ALL those Student Loans - Where did he get the money for the property? On the same day Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining empty lot for full price. The London Times reported that Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born Billionaire loaned Rezko $3.5 million three weeks before Obama's new home was purchased. Obama met Nadhmi Auchi many times with Rezko. All of the above information I got on line. If you would like to check it - Wikipedia, encyclopedia, Barack Obama; Tony Rezko; Valerie Jarrett: Daily Times - Obama visited Pakistan in 1981; The Washington Times - September 7, 2008; The Times May 10, 2008. Now the BIG question - If I found out all this information on my own, Why haven't all of our 'intelligent' members of the press been reporting this? A phrase that keeps ringing in my ear - 'Beware of the enemy from within'!!! Variations: Versions of this item circulated in 2012 were prefaced with an added line stating that it was "written by a female Obama supporter who voted for him for president." That statement is inaccurate, as this item originally appeared prior to the 2008 presidential election. Origins: The above-quoted piece combines a good deal of supposition and some elaborate conspiracy theory to question exactly where Senator Barack Obama obtained the money for his education and the purchase of a house in Chicago in 2005. The answers are fairly straightforward. As both Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have noted many times, they paid for their educations via scholarships and student loans, in the process (like many people) incurring debts which were not fully paid off until many years later. (In the Obamas' case, it was largely the revenue derived from Barack's pair of best-selling books that finally allowed them to retire their student loan debts.) student loans Likewise, the Obamas' financing of their house in Chicago was no mystery. The couple experienced a significant jump in income from 2000 onwards (largely from royalties on book sales), and they purchased their Chicago home in 2005, a year in which their combined income was $1.6 million: income The Obamas' best financial year came in 2005, when their total combined income was $1.6 million. That included $1.2 million in author fees for Obama's best-selling books. Michelle Obama's salary that year [as vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals] was $316,962 plus another $45,000 from TreeHouse Foods [for whom she served a member of the board of directors]. vice president The copies of the Obamas' federal tax returns tax returns During the summer of 1981, Barack Obama traveled to Indonesia to see his mother and half-sister and went on to visit Pakistan with a college friend. (There is no evidence that, as claimed above, he also went "off to Africa to visit his father's family" on that same trip.) Since Obama had relatives and friends to stay with during that time, his only major expense would have been airplane fare, and it's not much of a stretch to believe that cost could have been covered by contributions from relatives and earnings from various summer jobs he held before and during his time at Occidental College. As for why Barack Obama went to work as a community organizer in Chicago rather than New York (where he was currently living), he stated quite plainly in Dreams from My Father that he had made multiple efforts to find employment in that field without success and "had all but given up on organizing" when he received a job offer from Chicago-based social activist Jerry Kellman after responding to a help wanted ad in the New York Times. It is true that Tony Rezko's wife, Rita Rezko, bought an undeveloped lot adjacent to the Obamas' home (at a time when Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. attorneys) and subsequently sold the Obamas a small portion of that lot, but (as noted above) the house was well within the Obamas' price range given their current income level and they would have required no help from the Rezkos (or anyone else) to afford it: In June 2005, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining parcels in Kenwood. The state's junior senator paid $1.65 million for a Georgian revival mansion, while Rezko paid $625,000 for the adjacent, undeveloped lot. Both closed on their properties on the same day. In January [2006], aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land. As Senator Obama explained to the Chicago Sun-Times, the timing of the real estate purchases was dictated by the seller, and the prices were based on current market conditions and competing offers for the properties: Q: Have you or your wife ever done any legal work ever for Rezko or his companies? A: No. Q: How do you explain the fact your family purchased your home the same day as Rita Rezko bought the property adjacent to yours? Was this a coordinated purchase? A: The sellers required the closing of both properties at the same time. As they were moving out of town, they wished to conclude the sale of both properties simultaneously. The lot was purchased first; with the purchase of the house on the adjacent lot, the closings could proceed and did, on the same day, pursuant to the condition set by the sellers. Q: Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer? A: Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did. We were not involved in the Rezko negotiation of the price for the adjacent lot. It was our understanding that the owners had received, from another buyer, an offer for $625,000 and that therefore the Rezkos could not have offered or purchased that lot for less. Last updated: 1 May 2012 McKinney, Dave and Chris Fusco. "Obama on Rezko Deal: It Was a Mistake." Chicago Sun-Times. 5 November 2006. Popkin, Jim. "Obama's Tax Returns Show Leap in Income." MSNBC.com. 25 March 2008. Sweet, Lynn. "Michelle Obama's Ties to Wal-Mart Cut." Chicago Sun-Times. 23 May 2007. Thanawala, Sudhin. "Obama Worked to Fit in at Elite School." The Boston Globe. 26 March 2008. Walsh, Kenneth T. "On the Streets of Chicago, a Candidate Comes of Age." U.S. News & World Report. 26 August 2007. Wills, Christopher. "Fact Check: Camps Highlight Foes' Old Associates." Associated Press. 12 October 2008. Associated Press. "Michelle Obama: Barack's Book Sales Paid Off Our Student Loans." FoxNews.com. 14 August 2008.

False

Variations: Versions of this item circulated in 2012 were prefaced with an added line stating that it was "written by a female Obama supporter who voted for him for president." That statement is inaccurate, as this item originally appeared prior to the 2008 presidential election.As both Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, have noted many times, they paid for their educations via scholarships and student loans, in the process (like many people) incurring debts which were not fully paid off until many years later. (In the Obamas' case, it was largely the revenue derived from Barack's pair of best-selling books that finally allowed them to retire their student loan debts.)Likewise, the Obamas' financing of their house in Chicago was no mystery. The couple experienced a significant jump in income from 2000 onwards (largely from royalties on book sales), and they purchased their Chicago home in 2005, a year in which their combined income was $1.6 million:The Obamas' best financial year came in 2005, when their total combined income was $1.6 million. That included $1.2 million in author fees for Obama's best-selling books. Michelle Obama's salary that year [as vice president for community and external affairs at the University of Chicago Hospitals] was $316,962 plus another $45,000 from TreeHouse Foods [for whom she served a member of the board of directors].The copies of the Obamas' federal tax returns

FMD_train_691

Is Hamas.com a Website for Hamas?

11/29/2023

The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback. Israeli-Palestinian conflict Hamas deadly attack on Israel retaliated were reportedly killed mutual hostilities Read Submit Become a Snopes Member feedback Warning: Some external links in this story contain graphic imagery and language. Viewer discretion is advised. In late November 2023, numerous readers messaged Snopes asking if hamas.com was a real website operated by the militant group during the Israel-Hamas war. Many social media posts raised the same question, or claimed the site was indeed an authentic platform operated by Hamas, which is the Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement that has held control of Gaza since 2007. hamas.com posts same question Hamas held control of Gaza For instance, one user on X claimed, "They [Hamas] are so proud of themselves for what they did in Israel on #October7massacre so they uploaded it all onto their web page [hamas.com]," in reference to Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack in southern Israel that fueled the war. On Nov. 21, 2023, the state of Israel's official X account shared the website's URL, too, along with the caption, "To understand the scale of Hamas crimes against humanity visit Hamas.com." Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs' account shared the site, as well. claimed Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack in southern Israel shared account While the website was real that is, hamas.com indeed existed, as of this writing, and was publicly accessible it was not operated by the militant group, as the group's official domain was in fact Hamas.ps, and hamas.com's content was not in line with Hamas' official statements. Rather, evidence showed the website domain name has existed since 1999, and an unknown person, or group, used it to make the in-question site in mid-November 2023. Though Hamas did not create the site, it was unknown who, or what, did, as of this writing. A number of Jewish and pro-Israel news outlets claimed people attempting to promote Israel's political agenda were responsible. Meanwhile, a domain-search tool showed the site's creator(s) used Wix.com, an Israeli-based website-hosting service. We will update this report if learn more. Also, according to sources such as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, The New Arab and The Palestinian Academic Society, the official website for Hamas was hamas.ps, not hamas.com. That site was active as recently as September 2023, internet archives showed, though was taken down since then under circumstances that are unknown. The New Arab The Palestinian Academic Society In an attempt to determine hamas.com's origins, we examined its contents. It included several sections, such as "WHAT DOES HAMAS STAND FOR" or "HAMAS TESTIMONIALS." On the homepage, a subhead read, "Share our Success and spread Jihad," with numbers supposedly depicting people killed. Additionally, the website hosted several videos supposedly showing Hamas' actions. Such clips were titled, "Young Jewish girl punished and taken to Gaza" and "Our Hamas warriors kidnapping an old woman," for examples. Outside of the site, social media users shared that footage a fact made known by a "Hamas.com" overlay on the clips. The website also contained various blocks of text written in English that supposedly outlined Hamas' principles or goals. For instance, one section claimed Hamas would "discreetly spread the ideology" or "supersede all democratic systems." (emphasis ours): Islamic PrimacyIslamic law should supersede all democratic systems Takfir DoctrineThe whole world should adopt Islam, with non-Muslims being viewed as infidels and targets for assassination Coordinated LeadershipEstablishment synchronized power structures globally Stealthy PropagationEstablish Social programs to discreetly spread the ideology without attracting unwanted attention. Another block supposedly explained "Hamas's Presence and Activities in Different Countries." Similarly to the above-mentioned part, the sentences contained clues that they were not actually written by Hamas. For instance, the section claimed Hamas was using "deceptive narratives" and wanted to "overthrow secular governments" (emphasis ours): Stage 1Spread through social activities, often masking as movements and charitable entities Stage 2Dawah: Non-Muslims to embrace Islam through deceptive narratives of compassion and societal unity Stage 3Engage in local politics with the objective of influencing decision-making at the national level Stage 4Using military tactics, obtaining weapons, and using violence to achieve the movements goals and interests Stage 5Overthrow secular governments and establish a new government based on strict adherence to the Islamic law, and the execution or enslavement of non Muslims The text was authored to spread a specific narrative about Hamas. Hypothetically speaking, if it had truly been written by the militant group, it would be a blatant documentation of planned violence. In reality, text authored by Hamas does not use such phrasing. For instance, Hamas' latest charter does not mention overthrowing secular governments or using violence to achieve its goals, like the website claims. Rather, it words its objectives like this: Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion. latest charter it words its objectives like this Some social media users claimed the website was created on an Israel-based platform, Wix.com. Under the pretense of that claim, the site was possibly created to align with Israel's political agenda. claimed the We have created a new website to implicate hamas, but we arent very smart so we created it on an Israeli companys platform (wix) (Hamas .com was created by Israel to make it seem like Hamas created it) pic.twitter.com/Mvysrw4TSb pic.twitter.com/Mvysrw4TSb Benjamin Netanyahu - parody (@netanyahupress) November 21, 2023 November 21, 2023 We used ICANN a tool that allows users to look up "current registration data for domain names and Internet number resources" to independently verify that claim about the site being created on Wix.com, which is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel. ICANN headquartered Our findings showed the website was, in fact, created using Wix.com. Wix.com (ICANN screenshot) However, that evidence does not explain the website's purpose, nor prove a connection to Israel. For one, Wix operates globally, with offices in countries such as U.S, Germany, Brazil, India, and Singapore. Any user with access to Wix.com could have created the URL, regardless of the tech company's base in Israel. offices According to our findings via ICANN, the website's domain was created in 1999. We used Wayback Machine, an online Internet archive, to piece together the site's history. Those internet archives showed that, before Nov. 17, 2023, the domain hamas.com was not in its current form that is, displaying text, videos and images related to the 2023 Israel-Hamas war. At some points since the domain's creation in 1999, it appeared to be for sale. Additionally, we found examples of the headlines reading, "Hot Israeli Woman," "Six Sigma Training," or "Iraq War Pictures Unedited" displayed on the Hamas.com website in 2006. (Wayback Machine screenshots) (Note: Some social media users claimed the website was not safe to visit and could allegedly infect devices with malware. We checked the website's grade on Virus Total, a tool that scans URLs for viruses. The tool uses 90 security vendors to conduct analysis, and only two of them flagged hamas.com as possibly malicious. There was no further information about the alleged risk for visiting the site.) claimed tool Next, we considered the work of other journalists who investigated the site. While it was not clear who, or what, exactly, turned the website into a propaganda vessel during the Israel-Hamas conflict, journalists agreed Hamas was not involved. For instance, Shayan Sardarizadeh, a journalist at BBC Verify, called hamas.com a "fake Hamas website." As the website "https://t.co/ajygxmXHCq" is being tweeted by many official Israeli government accounts, it's worth noting that it's a fake Hamas website. https://t.co/ajygxmXHCq The real website associated with Hamas is currently offline. pic.twitter.com/w9uHfYK46R pic.twitter.com/w9uHfYK46R Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) November 21, 2023 November 21, 2023 The first article on the topic was published by an Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, on Nov. 20, 2023. Pointing to the fact that Hamas' actual website was offline and underscoring that the videos on the website appeared to be similar to the footage released by the IDF, it claimed people attempting to promote Israel's political agenda "hijacked" hamas.com to "highlight Hamas' actions" on Oct. 7. article The day after Haaretz's article published, on Nov. 21, The Jewish Press published an article with similar claims. It called hamas.com "Israeli-run," referring to the fact that the website was shared by multiple Israeli embassies and hosted on an Israeli platform. Moreover, the newspaper described it as a site pretending to be a "presentation of the terrorist organization itself, bragging about the horrors it inflicted on the Zionists." article Meanwhile, the Israeli news website Ynetnews concluded the website's "origins are unclear," though it vividly "showcases Hamas atrocities through graphic videos." The article cited a statement by Israel's Digital Diplomacy Division at the Foreign Ministry that suggested the website was created to confront Hamas' supporters: 'The decision to purchase the domain supposedly belonging to Hamas is a sophisticated way to confront those who sympathize with Hamas and justify its atrocities,' said David Saranga, head of the Digital Diplomacy Division at the Foreign Ministry, in response to Ynet. Hamas' actual website is Hamas.ps, according to sources including Haaretz. According to MISBAR, an independent Arabic fact-checking platform, Hamas confirmed via Telegram that its official website was hamas.ps: confirmed Hamas warned through a post on Telegram against dealing with websites that impersonate the movement and collects funds as part of distortion, fraud, and espionage, while announcing that their official website is hamas.ps and they have no other websites. At the time of this writing, hamas.ps was not publicly accessible. When we attempted to go to the website, we got an error message "This site cant be reached" indicating that it was taken down. accessible However, we were able to access hamas.ps via Wayback Machine. According to those records, here's what the website looked like in September 2023 (we translated text in the below-displayed image using Google Translate's plug-in). It's unknown when, or under what circumstances, the website was taken down after that. Also unknown was when it was created. hamas.ps (Hamas.ps, Wayback Machine screenshot) All in all, given that Hamas did not create hamas.com nor was the militant group operating the site during the Israel-Hamas war we rated this claim Hamas.Ps down? Current Problems and Status. - DownFor. Down For, https://downforeveryoneorjustme.com/hamas.ps. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. Ibrahim, Nur. People Claim a Majority of Palestinians in Gaza Elected Hamas Heres Why It Isnt That Simple. Snopes, 1 Nov. 2023, https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/11/01/majority-palestinians-gaza-elect-hamas/. ICANN Lookup. https://lookup.icann.org/en. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. Israelis Hijack Hamas.Com, Turning It Into a Display of October 7 Atrocities. Haaretz. Haaretz, https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2023-11-20/ty-article/.premium/israelis-hijack-hamas-com-turning-it-into-a-display-of-october-7-atrocities/0000018b-eca2-d8b1-a9df-ecef8b380000. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. Kahan, Raphael and itamar. Whos behind pro-Israel Hamas Website. Ynetnews, 25 Nov. 2023. www.ynetnews.com, https://www.ynetnews.com/business/article/bktpbd1ra. VirusTotal. https://www.virustotal.com/gui/url/f40ff59c4f3947f2b9e95861580b98e4d9b458626b35b40eabaea635484261d5/detection. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. Wintour, Patrick, and Patrick Wintour Diplomatic editor. Hamas Presents New Charter Accepting a Palestine Based on 1967 Borders. The Guardian, 1 May 2017. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/01/hamas-new-charter-palestine-israel-1967-borders. Wix Offices Around the World | Help Center | Wix.Com. https://support.wix.com/en/article/wix-offices-around-the-world. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. | . https://misbar.com/en/editorial/2023/11/23/israel-promotes-a-fake-website-affiliated-with-hamas. Accessed 29 Nov. 2023. - . 5 Sept. 2021, https://web.archive.org/web/20210905063708/https://hamas.ps/ar/.

False

The protracted, often bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict exploded into a hot war on Oct. 7, 2023, when the militant Palestinian group Hamas launched a deadly attack on Israel and Israel retaliated by bombarding the Gaza Strip. More than 20,000 people, the vast majority of them Palestinians, were reportedly killed during the first two months of the war alone. The violence is driven by mutual hostilities and territorial ambitions dating back more than a century. The internet has become an unofficial front in that war and is rife with misinformation, which Snopes is dedicated to countering with facts and context. You can help. Read the latest fact checks. Submit questionable claims. Become a Snopes Member to support our work. We welcome your participation and feedback.In late November 2023, numerous readers messaged Snopes asking if hamas.com was a real website operated by the militant group during the Israel-Hamas war. Many social media posts raised the same question, or claimed the site was indeed an authentic platform operated by Hamas, which is the Arabic acronym for the Islamic Resistance Movement that has held control of Gaza since 2007.For instance, one user on X claimed, "They [Hamas] are so proud of themselves for what they did in Israel on #October7massacre so they uploaded it all onto their web page [hamas.com]," in reference to Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, attack in southern Israel that fueled the war. On Nov. 21, 2023, the state of Israel's official X account shared the website's URL, too, along with the caption, "To understand the scale of Hamas crimes against humanity visit Hamas.com." Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs' account shared the site, as well.Also, according to sources such as the Israeli newspaper Haaretz, The New Arab and The Palestinian Academic Society, the official website for Hamas was hamas.ps, not hamas.com. That site was active as recently as September 2023, internet archives showed, though was taken down since then under circumstances that are unknown.In reality, text authored by Hamas does not use such phrasing. For instance, Hamas' latest charter does not mention overthrowing secular governments or using violence to achieve its goals, like the website claims. Rather, it words its objectives like this: Hamas affirms that its conflict is with the Zionist project not with the Jews because of their religion.Some social media users claimed the website was created on an Israel-based platform, Wix.com. Under the pretense of that claim, the site was possibly created to align with Israel's political agenda.(Hamas .com was created by Israel to make it seem like Hamas created it) pic.twitter.com/Mvysrw4TSb Benjamin Netanyahu - parody (@netanyahupress) November 21, 2023We used ICANN a tool that allows users to look up "current registration data for domain names and Internet number resources" to independently verify that claim about the site being created on Wix.com, which is headquartered in Tel Aviv, Israel.Our findings showed the website was, in fact, created using Wix.com.However, that evidence does not explain the website's purpose, nor prove a connection to Israel. For one, Wix operates globally, with offices in countries such as U.S, Germany, Brazil, India, and Singapore. Any user with access to Wix.com could have created the URL, regardless of the tech company's base in Israel.(Note: Some social media users claimed the website was not safe to visit and could allegedly infect devices with malware. We checked the website's grade on Virus Total, a tool that scans URLs for viruses. The tool uses 90 security vendors to conduct analysis, and only two of them flagged hamas.com as possibly malicious. There was no further information about the alleged risk for visiting the site.)As the website "https://t.co/ajygxmXHCq" is being tweeted by many official Israeli government accounts, it's worth noting that it's a fake Hamas website.The real website associated with Hamas is currently offline. pic.twitter.com/w9uHfYK46R Shayan Sardarizadeh (@Shayan86) November 21, 2023The first article on the topic was published by an Israeli newspaper, Haaretz, on Nov. 20, 2023. Pointing to the fact that Hamas' actual website was offline and underscoring that the videos on the website appeared to be similar to the footage released by the IDF, it claimed people attempting to promote Israel's political agenda "hijacked" hamas.com to "highlight Hamas' actions" on Oct. 7.The day after Haaretz's article published, on Nov. 21, The Jewish Press published an article with similar claims. It called hamas.com "Israeli-run," referring to the fact that the website was shared by multiple Israeli embassies and hosted on an Israeli platform. Moreover, the newspaper described it as a site pretending to be a "presentation of the terrorist organization itself, bragging about the horrors it inflicted on the Zionists."Hamas' actual website is Hamas.ps, according to sources including Haaretz. According to MISBAR, an independent Arabic fact-checking platform, Hamas confirmed via Telegram that its official website was hamas.ps:At the time of this writing, hamas.ps was not publicly accessible. When we attempted to go to the website, we got an error message "This site cant be reached" indicating that it was taken down.However, we were able to access hamas.ps via Wayback Machine. According to those records, here's what the website looked like in September 2023 (we translated text in the below-displayed image using Google Translate's plug-in). It's unknown when, or under what circumstances, the website was taken down after that. Also unknown was when it was created.

FMD_train_968

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

11/06/2020

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

True

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

FMD_train_1448

Did Calif. Announce It Will Pay Undocumented Residents COVID-19 Stimulus While Laying Off First Responders?

05/27/2020

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

False

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. California Gov. Gavin Newsom on April 15, 2020, acknowledged undocumented residents paid $2.5 billion in state and local taxes in 2019. He then announced the state would draw up a total of $125 million sourced from charitable donations and taxpayer funds to provide $500 stimulus payments to those residents. That was because they didn't qualify to receive federal stimulus checks under the CARES Act, a relief package meant to blunt the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic.This announcement was unrelated to another statement Newsom made more than a month later. In the latter, he urged the federal government to provide financial assistance to states and local governments struggling with economic shortfalls to their operating budgets due to forced business closures during the pandemic. In an interview on CNN on May 21, Newsom stated that without federal help, cities and counties may be forced to lay off first responders.As of late May, California was facing a $54 billion budget shortfall resulting from economic fallout of stay-at-home orders that forced shuttering of most commerce beginning in mid-March, in an effort to slow the spread of the COVID-19 disease. The state one year earlier had a surplus of $21 billion.

FMD_train_1870

The fraudulent scheme involving an $80 coupon at Wegmans

02/01/2016

In late January 2016, Facebook users began sharing a post that promised a $200 coupon for the Wegmans supermarket chain to users who completed a short series of steps. In July 2019, social media users encountered a similar offer for an $80 coupon. The embedded links in those posts pointed to a URL not associated with Wegmans. Users who attempted to complete the steps and claim the coupon were directed to a page that resembled content hosted on Facebook, but its URL didn't match the social network's. The landing page was familiar to all who had encountered similar scams in the past. Wegmans' official Facebook page warned customers about the coupon scam, and a Better Business Bureau article provided shoppers with tips on avoiding survey and coupon scams operating in that fashion. The article advised, "Don't believe what you see. It's easy to steal the colors, logos, and header of an established organization." Scammers can also make links look like they lead to legitimate websites and emails appear to come from a different sender. Legitimate businesses do not ask for credit card numbers or banking information on customer surveys. If they do ask for personal information, like an address or email, be sure there's a link to their privacy policy. When in doubt, do a quick web search. If the survey is a scam, you may find alerts or complaints from other consumers. The organization's real website may have further information. Watch out for a reward that's too good to be true. If the survey is real, you may be entered in a drawing to win a gift card or receive a small discount off your next purchase. Few businesses can afford to give away $50 gift cards for completing a few questions.

False

A Better Business Bureauarticle provided shoppers tips about avoiding survey and coupon scams operating in that fashion:

FMD_train_1569

The Texas unemployment rate is now the lowest its been in 40 years & Texas led the nation last month in new job creation.

11/16/2017

It's commonplace for a governor to tout a state's economy. Still, Greg Abbott of Texas made us wonder when he tweeted in mid-November 2017: "The Texas unemployment rate is now the lowest it's been in 40 years & Texas led the nation last month in new job creation." Abbott, a Republican seeking re-election in 2018, accompanied his tweet with a campaign video of him smiling at business groundbreakings. The ad flashes headlines about companies opening facilities and adding jobs in Texas. Tagline: "And we're just getting started." We began fact-checking Abbott's tweet by asking his office for backup; we didn't receive a response. In July 2017, Abbott made a mostly true claim about more Texans having jobs than ever. Yet we noticed that when Abbott tweeted about the state's jobless rate last month, the October 2017 unemployment rates had yet to be revealed. To get our fix on the latest available data, we fetched Bureau of Labor Statistics figures showing that the state's impressive 4 percent jobless rate for September 2017 tied the previous record low since 1976. According to the bureau, the state similarly had a 4 percent unemployment rate in November and December 2000, 17 years ago. The state jobless rate in fall 1977, 40 years ago, hovered at 5.2 percent. In response to our inquiry, a Dallas-based bureau economist, Cheryl Abbott, confirmed our understanding of monthly seasonally adjusted Texas jobless rates since 1976. Mark J. Perry, who teaches at the University of Michigan-Flint, agreed, though Perry, by email, called Abbott's overstatement on this point minor. Texas Unemployment Rate (Seasonally Adjusted), 1976-September 2017. SOURCE: Website, Local Area Unemployment Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nov. 16, 2017 (downloaded Nov. 16, 2017). Job gains? By email, the bureau's Abbott showed that Texas didn't lead the country in job gains for September (again, the latest month of available data). In fact, an October 2017 bureau press release indicates Texas wasn't even among the five states that experienced job gains from August to September 2017. From the release: "The largest increase in employment occurred in California (+52,200), followed by Washington (+13,800) and Indiana (+11,400)." The states were also described as enjoying statistically significant month-to-month gains. In percentage terms, the bureau said, the largest increase occurred in Nebraska (+0.5 percent), followed by Arizona, Indiana, and Washington (+0.4 percent each). California had a 0.4 percent gain, the release said. According to a more detailed bureau chart we checked in mid-November 2017, Texas saw a 0.1 percent decrease in jobs from August to September 2017, going from 12,328,400 jobs to 12,321,100 jobs. The chart indicates 30 states fared better month to month, though that includes five states showing no percentage gains (or losses). There's a more encouraging longer view. The bureau's release lists Texas among 28 states with over-the-year increases in nonfarm payroll employment from September 2016 to September 2017. The release stated: "The largest job gains occurred in California (+280,300), Texas (+256,100), and New York (+93,100)—with the largest percentage gains occurring in Nevada and Utah (+2.5 percent each), followed by Maryland (+2.4 percent)." According to an accompanying chart, Texas and Idaho each saw a 2.1 percent increase in jobs over the year, tying for fourth nationally behind Washington state, which saw a 2.2 percent increase in jobs. Abbott wrote: "As you can see, the largest monthly increase in jobs in September 2017 occurred in California (+52,200). In percentage terms, Nebraska led among the states with a 0.5 percent gain. California also recorded the largest over-the-year increase during this period (280,300), followed by Texas (256,100)." Our ruling: Abbott tweeted, "The Texas unemployment rate is now the lowest it's been in 40 years & Texas led the nation last month in new job creation." The latest unemployment data posted when Abbott spoke showed Texas with a 4 percent unemployment rate in September 2017, though that didn't set a 40-year record. Rather, it tied the previous 40-year low set in two months of 2000. Abbott didn't provide, nor did we find, data showing jobs created in each state in October 2017. Federal data otherwise indicate that Texas experienced a slight decrease in jobs from August to September 2017, though the state also was home to more jobs than a year earlier. We rate this claim false. The statement is not accurate. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. UPDATE, Nov. 17, 2017: Two days after Abbott tweeted his claim about the Texas jobless rate, the federal government reported that the state had a 41-year record low 3.9 percent jobless rate in October 2017.

False

Its commonplace for a governor to tout a states economy. Still, Greg Abbott of Texas made us wonder when hetweetedin mid-November 2017: The Texas unemployment rate is now the lowest its been in 40 years & Texas led the nation last month in new job creation.Abbott, a Republican seeking re-election in 2018, accompanied his tweet with acampaign videoof Abbott smiling at business groundbreakings. The ad flashes headlines about companies opening facilities and adding jobs in Texas. Tagline: And were just getting started.In July 2017, Abbott made aMostly True claimabout more Texans having jobs than ever. Yet we noticed that when Abbott tweeted about the states jobless rate last month, October 2017 unemployment rates had yet to be revealed.To get our fix on the latest available data, we fetched Bureau of Labor Statistics figures showing that the states impressive 4 percent jobless rate for September 2017 tied the previous record low since 1976. According to the bureau, the state similarly had a 4 percent unemployment rate in November and December 2000, 17 years ago.The state jobless rate in fall 1977, 40 years ago, hovered at 5.2 percent.SOURCE: Website,Local Area Unemployment Statistics,Bureau of Labor Statistics, Nov. 16, 2017 (downloaded Nov. 16, 2017)In fact, an October 2017 bureaupress releaseindicates Texas wasn't even among the five states that experienced job gains from August to September 2017.FALSE The statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.UPDATE, Nov. 17, 2017:Two days after Abbott tweeted his claim about the Texas jobless rate, thefederal government reportedthat the state had a 41-year record low 3.9 percent jobless rate in October 2017.

FMD_train_625

Do Electric Cars and Batteries Cause Harm to the Environment?

03/28/2022

In mid-March 2022, a widely circulated meme was sent to our editorial team for investigation, which we determined contains a mixture of true, false, and unproven claims. In a nutshell, the post argued that eco-friendly electric vehicles (EVs) were bad for the environment, and presented several vague, unsupported facts in an attempt to bolster the argument. The Facebook post we received appeared to have started circulating online on March 12, 2022. The fact-checking website Lead Stories located a complete version of the post, which we have archived. Lead Stories complete version archived The entirety of the post is too long to share here, but we have broken out its primary claims below. For help evaluating them, we spoke with Elena Krieger, director of research at PSE Healthy Energy, a multidisciplinary research and policy institute focused on the adoption of evidence-based energy policy. entirety of the post Elena Krieger It is true that batteries store electricity produced elsewhere, but what that electricity is generated by depends on the electric grid that the battery is connected to. (For more background on this, read "Energy Storage: How It Works and Its Role in an Equitable Clean Energy Future," by the Union of Concerned Scientists.) Energy Storage: California has specifically designed its Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) to encourage charging at times when grid emissions are low, pointed out Krieger. As Jeff St. John wrote in an article for Green Tech Media, the goal of projects like SGIP are to incentivize power-producing technologies that contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions, such as solar or wind, than fossil fuels do. There are controversies with the technology, such as concerns that natural-gas-fueled generators used werent reducing the consumption of fossil fuels. SGIP encourage charging Green Tech Media Battery facilities also allow for power from renewable sources to be produced when the wind is blowing windmills or the sun is shining on solar panels before being stored for later use during times of high consumption. allow An electric vehicle has zero tailpipe emissions, noted Krieger. However, emissions from both greenhouse gases and health-damaging air pollutants throughout the course of the vehicles use depend on how and where the vehicle is produced, what electricity is used to charge the vehicle, and how the vehicle is disposed of. Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed data from 2018 and affirmed that EVs produce significantly fewer emissions than gasoline: affirmed Based on where EVs have been sold, driving the average EV produces global warming pollution equal to a gasoline vehicle that gets 88 miles per gallon (mpg) fuel economy. Thats significantly better than the most efficient gasoline car (58 mpg) and far cleaner than the average new gasoline car (31 mpg) or truck (21 mpg) sold in the US. And our estimate for EV emissions is almost 10 percent lower than our previous estimate two years ago. Now 94 percent of people in the US live where driving an EV produces less emissions than using a 50 mpg gasoline car. almost 10 percent lower than our previous estimate two years ago Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EPA) show that 22% of electricity generated in the U.S. was from coal plants in 2021, up from 19% the year before, so the first part of this statement is incorrect, explained Krieger. Data The second part implies that the generation is proportional to vehicle charging. This assumption may be invalid for two reasons: 1) EV adoption is very high in places like California, which has minimal coal in its power mix, and 2) it depends on when the vehicles are charged, and which power plants dominate at the time the vehicles are charged. It is true that there are rechargeable and single-use batteries, both of which contain toxic materials of varying degrees. No technology is zero impact, but some battery chemistries use fewer toxic materials than others. For example, Tesla is phasing out cobalt from its batteries, albeit likely due to outside pressure, because cobalt is often mined by children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). More on that below, explained Krieger. phasing out It is estimated that more than 70% of the worlds cobalt is produced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Foreign-owned firms, primarily Chinese, account for about 60% of global cobalt demand to be used in the rechargeable battery industry to be used in cars and electronic devices. Cobalt mining does come with environmental complications that may outweigh its use in rechargeable electronics. The nonpartisan research group Wilson Center reports that quick cobalt extraction contributes to global warming, while mining operations generate incredibly high carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions, both of which can contribute to the greenhouse effect. 60% of global cobalt reports contribute to the greenhouse effect Human rights groups have documented severe human rights issues in mining operations, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. It is estimated that of the 255,000 Congolese mining for cobalt, 40,000 are children. Council on Foreign Relations estimated Cobalt increases battery life and has been a popular choice for EV batteries, but the U.S. Geological Survey notes that the mineral is also used in a plethora of other goods, including airbags, petroleum and chemical industries, paints, varnishes, dyes, and magnets, among many other goods and processes. popular choice notes Snopes spoke with Brandon Baxley, an LA-based engineer and physicists, who said that Einsteins formula is not the best concept to apply in this case. Einsteins formula is more about how much total possible energy can be extracted from mass like, for example, in a nuclear explosion. It isnt relevant to something like this, said Baxley. If [the original poster] is referencing Einsteins formula, that means they arent entirely clear on the physics of the theory. However, that doesnt mean the argument is entirely incorrect. Baxley noted that in this case, the theory of kinetic energy is a more appropriate concept. This follows that it would take the same amount of energy to move two vehicles of equal weight regardless of whether they are powered by gas or electricity Over the last four decades, the average weight of a vehicle in the U.S. has increased from about 3,200 pounds to nearly 4,200 pounds for a variety of reasons, one of which is due to heavier battery packs in electric vehicles, according to a 2020 report by the EPA. Heavier vehicles require more energy to move than lower-weighted vehicles, but weight is just one component in addition to other factors like velocity and speed. EPA I assume nickel-metal oxide is meant to refer to nickel-metal hydride, which is common in older Priuses. Nickel-cadmium batteries were common for small electronics but aren't used in cars or laptops or anything and are less common now. Lead-acid batteries, such as those used to start most cars, are also rechargeable. Nearly all lead-acid batteries are recycled, although it's worth noting these facilities aren't always safely managed, explained Kireger. Nearly all See, for example, the Excide plant in LA that was polluting a largely low-income Latino community for decades. Lithium-ion batteries are currently recycled at a low rate, largely because it is cheaper to make new batteries than recycle old ones, although there are a lot of start-ups working in this space (e.g. Redwood Materials, founded by former Tesla CTO). This is an area that needs additional funding, research, and regulations. polluting Redwood Materials Krieger explained that many batteries self-discharge at some rate (some higher than others), meaning that if a battery is left unused for a long period of time, it will likely have a lower state of charge over time. She furthered: The "ruined flashlight" sounds like some kind of side-reaction occurred over time, likely producing materials that put stress on the battery and caused it to rupture, leaking out battery acid that damaged the surrounding casement. In terms of batteries being "run down," typically a battery is considered "dead" when it hits some threshold where the voltage of the battery drops below a certain level. The poster is correct that you could theoretically drain a battery even more if you hooked it up to a circuit. The battery isn't exactly "leaking" electricity to the outside. It is likely undergoing additional electrochemical reactions that, ideally, wouldn't occur. I think what typically comes out is the electrolyte, not the electrode materials, since the electrolyte is more likely to be a liquid. You certainly shouldn't touch the electrolyte. It's often acidic. In Oakland, at least, you're not supposed to throw batteries in trash; you're supposed to put them in a separate bag on your trash can so that the hazardous waste can be managed properly and not just thrown in a landfill. I do agree that you shouldn't just throw a lithium-ion battery in a landfill. Ideally, we learn low-energy and cost-effective ways to recycle them all. Lead-acid batteries, as noted, are usually recycled, and I think that is promising for our ability to manage the future lithium-ion battery waste stream. Getty Images This point is part of the continued debate over whether renewable energies like solar panels and wind turbines can be considered green as they require extractive resources to build, many of which can be harmful to human health. debate solar panels Silicon derived from quartz is the primary material used in the production of solar cells, a process that produces greenhouse gas emissions and requires manufacturers to handle toxic chemicals. Solar panels can also be sourced and made from a variety of materials, including silicon-based panels, gallium arsenide, cadmium-telluride (often referred to as "thin film", etc. primary material These aren't usually all made at once (except in relatively rare multi-junction cells); instead, most manufacturers make silicon cells, and some others use other semiconductors such as cadmium telluride. Some parts of these are recycled, some aren't. The production process, like any materials processing, does need to be conducted in a way that protects environmental and human health, said Kreiger. recycled The EPA notes that many of the materials are easily recyclable, including glass (about 75% of a solar panel), the aluminum frame, copper wire, and plastic junction box. Toxic chemicals, including cadmium, may also be present in solar panels that can make recycling more difficult. Even so, at least one U.S. manufacturer runs dedicated recycling facilities that recover semiconductor material like cadmium and tellurium. notes The cited windmill is also slightly off and depends on the size and model the a turbine in question. For example, the Haliade-X turbine, which is among the largest in production, caps out to just over 900 tons. Wind turbines last an average of 25 years and about 85% of component materials including steel, copper wire, electronics, and gearing can be recycled, according to an article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. As of this writing, it is true that used blades cannot be recycled. It is also true that windmills are energy intensive and that the blades are largely not recyclable. As we have previously reported, some windmills may not recoup their energy-construction costs, but it is untrue to say that no windmills will generate as much energy as was invested in building them. In some cases, a well-situated windmill could pay back the energy costs in under three years. Haliade-X turbine 900 tons article cannot be recycled blades are largely not recyclable may not recoup their energy-construction costs generate well-situated windmill The question is: how long must a windmill generate energy before it creates more energy than it took to build it? At a good wind site, the energy payback day could be in three years or less; in a poor location, energy payback may be never, wrote earth scientist David Hughes in his 2009 book, Carbon Shift: How Peak Oil and the Climate Crisis Will Change Canada (and Our Lives). Data in the meme appears to be quoted from the Tesla website (900 pounds, 6,831 cells; this is old and likely varies by model). As Krieger notes, its difficult to generalize the weight and amount of materials in any given EV as each manufacturer uses a different chemistry and the chemistries are constantly changing. website A 2021 article published in Nature suggested that many EV batteries contain eight kilograms of lithium, 35 kilograms of nickel, 20 kilograms of manganese, and 14 kilograms of cobalt but many companies are moving away from cobalt or advancing various technologies and the usage of certain materials. Nature An aerial view of Moss Landing in California with the power plant pictured in the center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual Library U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual Library It appears that the original poster is referencing the Moss Landing battery project that replaced an old gas plant. Currently, it measures 400 megawatts, and operators are considering doubling it. Exactly what that expansion looks like remains to be determined. battery project that While some of the power charging this facility might come from solar and wind, there's no guarantee it will do so. It just charges and discharges from the grid. It might charge more with solar, since we're starting to see a surplus in the middle of the day, and it might help integrate wind power, and it might do other things like help limit the need for gas plants to ramp up quickly to meet the evening peak, explained Krieger. In short, the post claiming that EVs are no better for the environment than other energy sources is a form of copypasta in which social media users copy and paste content without verifying the claims made within it. A look through social media confirmed that the uncited facts had been reposted numerous times. While there are elements of truth to the post, it largely overgeneralizes the science behind batteries and EVs and does not list sources to verify the claims. As such, we have rated this claim as a Mixture. copypasta A Bit About Batteries. 30 Nov. 2006, https://www.tesla.com/pt_PT/blog/bit-about-batteries. Are Electric Vehicles Really Better for the Climate? Yes. Heres Why. The Equation, 11 Feb. 2020, https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/are-electric-vehicles-really-better-for-the-climate-yes-heres-why/. Are Solar Panels Toxic or Bad For the Environment? | EnergySage. Solar News, 1 Feb. 2018, https://news.energysage.com/solar-panels-toxic-environment/. Are Windmill Turbine Blades Buried in Wyoming Landfill? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-turbine-blades-landfills/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Author: Elena Krieger, PhD. PSE | Physicians, Scientists, and Engineers for Healthy Energy, https://www.psehealthyenergy.org/about/staff/elena-krieger/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Calma, Justine. Tesla to Make EV Battery Cathodes without Cobalt. The Verge, 22 Sept. 2020, https://www.theverge.com/2020/9/22/21451670/tesla-cobalt-free-cathodes-mining-battery-nickel-ev-cost. Castelvecchi, Davide. Electric Cars and Batteries: How Will the World Produce Enough? Nature, vol. 596, no. 7872, Aug. 2021, pp. 33639. www.nature.com, https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-021-02222-1. Cobalt Use in Batteries - Google Search. https://www.google.com/search?q=cobalt+use+in+batteries&rlz=1C5CHFA_enUS910US910&oq=cobalt+use+in+batteries&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j0i22i30l5.2996j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Copypasta. Snopes.com, https://www.snopes.com/collections/copypasta/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Could Anti-Solar Panels Use Deep Space to Generate Power at Night? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/anti-solar-panels-night-power/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Cutting the Carbon From Californias Self-Generation Incentive Program | GTM Squared. https://www.greentechmedia.com/squared/dispatches-from-the-grid-edge/cutting-the-carbon-from-californias-self-generation-incentive-program. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Did California Tell Residents Not To Charge Electric Cars Due to Power Shortage? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/california-electric-cars-charge/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Did Total Collapse in Wind and Solar Energy Leave Germany in Need of Coal-Fired Power? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/total-collapse-wind-solar-germany/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Do Windmills Consume More Energy to Build Than They Ever Produce? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-idiot-power/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Does Antarctica Have Functioning Wind Turbines? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-turbines-antarctica/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Electricity Data Browser. https://www.eia.gov/electricity/data/browser/#/topic/0?agg=2,0,1&fuel=vtvv&geo=g&sec=g&linechart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.TSN-US-99.A&columnchart=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.COW-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NG-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.NUC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.HYC-US-99.A~ELEC.GEN.WND-US-99.A&map=ELEC.GEN.ALL-US-99.A&freq=A&ctype=linechart&ltype=pin&rtype=s&maptype=0&rse=0&pin=. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Expansion Plan to Take Worlds Biggest Battery Storage Project to 3GWh Capacity. Energy Storage News, 25 Jan. 2022, https://www.energy-storage.news/expansion-plan-to-take-worlds-biggest-battery-storage-project-to-3gwh-capacity/. Fact Check: Electric Vehicles DO Pollute -- But Engineers Are Reducing Impacts | Lead Stories. https://leadstories.com/hoax-alert/2022/03/fact-check-electric-vehicles-do-pollute-but-engineers-are-reducing-impacts.html. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Gaines, Linda. The Future of Automotive Lithium-Ion Battery Recycling: Charting a Sustainable Course. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, vol. 12, Dec. 2014, pp. 27. ScienceDirect, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2014.10.001. Governor Proposes $454 Million to Clean up Exide Battery Recycling Plant. Daily News, 18 May 2021, https://www.dailynews.com/2021/05/17/governor-proposes-454-million-to-clean-up-exide-battery-recycling-plant. Gulley, Andrew L., et al. Chinas Domestic and Foreign Influence in the Global Cobalt Supply Chain. Resources Policy, vol. 62, Aug. 2019, pp. 31723. DOI.org (Crossref), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2019.03.015. How Energy Storage Works | Union of Concerned Scientists. https://www.ucsusa.org/resources/how-energy-storage-works. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Katz, Cheryl. The Batteries That Could Make Fossil Fuels Obsolete. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20201217-renewable-power-the-worlds-largest-battery. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. New Data Show Electric Vehicles Continue to Get Cleaner. The Equation, 8 Mar. 2018, https://blog.ucsusa.org/dave-reichmuth/new-data-show-electric-vehicles-continue-to-get-cleaner/. Redwood Materials. Redwood Materials, https://www.redwoodmaterials.com. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Self-Generation Incentive Program. https://www.cpuc.ca.gov/industries-and-topics/electrical-energy/demand-side-management/self-generation-incentive-program. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. The DRC Mining Industry: Child Labor and Formalization of Small-Scale Mining | Wilson Center. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/drc-mining-industry-child-labor-and-formalization-small-scale-mining. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/drc-mining-industry-child-labor-and-formalization-small-scale-mining. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. The Greenhouse Effect | Center for Science Education. https://scied.ucar.edu/learning-zone/how-climate-works/greenhouse-effect. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. US EPA, OLEM. Solar Panel Recycling. 23 Aug. 2021, https://www.epa.gov/hw/solar-panel-recycling. Vries, Eize de. Haliade-X Uncovered: GE Aims for 14MW. https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1577816?utm_source=website&utm_medium=social. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Haliade-X Uncovered: GE Aims for 14MW. https://www.windpowermonthly.com/article/1577816?utm_source=website&utm_medium=social. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Were Frozen Wind Turbines in Texas a Major Factor in Power Outages? Snopes.Com, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/wind-turbines-texas-power-outages/. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Why Cobalt Mining in the DRC Needs Urgent Attention. Council on Foreign Relations, https://www.cfr.org/blog/why-cobalt-mining-drc-needs-urgent-attention. Accessed 28 Mar. 2022. Wind Turbine Blades Dont Have To End Up In Landfills. The Equation, 30 Oct. 2020, https://blog.ucsusa.org/james-gignac/wind-turbine-blades-recycling/.

NEI

The Facebook post we received appeared to have started circulating online on March 12, 2022. The fact-checking website Lead Stories located a complete version of the post, which we have archived. The entirety of the post is too long to share here, but we have broken out its primary claims below. For help evaluating them, we spoke with Elena Krieger, director of research at PSE Healthy Energy, a multidisciplinary research and policy institute focused on the adoption of evidence-based energy policy.It is true that batteries store electricity produced elsewhere, but what that electricity is generated by depends on the electric grid that the battery is connected to. (For more background on this, read "Energy Storage: How It Works and Its Role in an Equitable Clean Energy Future," by the Union of Concerned Scientists.) California has specifically designed its Self-Generation Incentive Program (SGIP) to encourage charging at times when grid emissions are low, pointed out Krieger. As Jeff St. John wrote in an article for Green Tech Media, the goal of projects like SGIP are to incentivize power-producing technologies that contribute less to greenhouse gas emissions, such as solar or wind, than fossil fuels do. There are controversies with the technology, such as concerns that natural-gas-fueled generators used werent reducing the consumption of fossil fuels.Battery facilities also allow for power from renewable sources to be produced when the wind is blowing windmills or the sun is shining on solar panels before being stored for later use during times of high consumption.Union of Concerned Scientists analyzed data from 2018 and affirmed that EVs produce significantly fewer emissions than gasoline:Based on where EVs have been sold, driving the average EV produces global warming pollution equal to a gasoline vehicle that gets 88 miles per gallon (mpg) fuel economy. Thats significantly better than the most efficient gasoline car (58 mpg) and far cleaner than the average new gasoline car (31 mpg) or truck (21 mpg) sold in the US. And our estimate for EV emissions is almost 10 percent lower than our previous estimate two years ago. Now 94 percent of people in the US live where driving an EV produces less emissions than using a 50 mpg gasoline car.Data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EPA) show that 22% of electricity generated in the U.S. was from coal plants in 2021, up from 19% the year before, so the first part of this statement is incorrect, explained Krieger.No technology is zero impact, but some battery chemistries use fewer toxic materials than others. For example, Tesla is phasing out cobalt from its batteries, albeit likely due to outside pressure, because cobalt is often mined by children in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). More on that below, explained Krieger. It is estimated that more than 70% of the worlds cobalt is produced in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). Foreign-owned firms, primarily Chinese, account for about 60% of global cobalt demand to be used in the rechargeable battery industry to be used in cars and electronic devices. Cobalt mining does come with environmental complications that may outweigh its use in rechargeable electronics. The nonpartisan research group Wilson Center reports that quick cobalt extraction contributes to global warming, while mining operations generate incredibly high carbon dioxide and nitrogen dioxide emissions, both of which can contribute to the greenhouse effect.Human rights groups have documented severe human rights issues in mining operations, according to the Council on Foreign Relations. It is estimated that of the 255,000 Congolese mining for cobalt, 40,000 are children.Cobalt increases battery life and has been a popular choice for EV batteries, but the U.S. Geological Survey notes that the mineral is also used in a plethora of other goods, including airbags, petroleum and chemical industries, paints, varnishes, dyes, and magnets, among many other goods and processes. Over the last four decades, the average weight of a vehicle in the U.S. has increased from about 3,200 pounds to nearly 4,200 pounds for a variety of reasons, one of which is due to heavier battery packs in electric vehicles, according to a 2020 report by the EPA. Heavier vehicles require more energy to move than lower-weighted vehicles, but weight is just one component in addition to other factors like velocity and speed. I assume nickel-metal oxide is meant to refer to nickel-metal hydride, which is common in older Priuses. Nickel-cadmium batteries were common for small electronics but aren't used in cars or laptops or anything and are less common now. Lead-acid batteries, such as those used to start most cars, are also rechargeable. Nearly all lead-acid batteries are recycled, although it's worth noting these facilities aren't always safely managed, explained Kireger.See, for example, the Excide plant in LA that was polluting a largely low-income Latino community for decades. Lithium-ion batteries are currently recycled at a low rate, largely because it is cheaper to make new batteries than recycle old ones, although there are a lot of start-ups working in this space (e.g. Redwood Materials, founded by former Tesla CTO). This is an area that needs additional funding, research, and regulations. Getty ImagesThis point is part of the continued debate over whether renewable energies like solar panels and wind turbines can be considered green as they require extractive resources to build, many of which can be harmful to human health. Silicon derived from quartz is the primary material used in the production of solar cells, a process that produces greenhouse gas emissions and requires manufacturers to handle toxic chemicals. Solar panels can also be sourced and made from a variety of materials, including silicon-based panels, gallium arsenide, cadmium-telluride (often referred to as "thin film", etc. These aren't usually all made at once (except in relatively rare multi-junction cells); instead, most manufacturers make silicon cells, and some others use other semiconductors such as cadmium telluride. Some parts of these are recycled, some aren't. The production process, like any materials processing, does need to be conducted in a way that protects environmental and human health, said Kreiger. The EPA notes that many of the materials are easily recyclable, including glass (about 75% of a solar panel), the aluminum frame, copper wire, and plastic junction box. Toxic chemicals, including cadmium, may also be present in solar panels that can make recycling more difficult. Even so, at least one U.S. manufacturer runs dedicated recycling facilities that recover semiconductor material like cadmium and tellurium. The cited windmill is also slightly off and depends on the size and model the a turbine in question. For example, the Haliade-X turbine, which is among the largest in production, caps out to just over 900 tons. Wind turbines last an average of 25 years and about 85% of component materials including steel, copper wire, electronics, and gearing can be recycled, according to an article published by the Union of Concerned Scientists. As of this writing, it is true that used blades cannot be recycled. It is also true that windmills are energy intensive and that the blades are largely not recyclable. As we have previously reported, some windmills may not recoup their energy-construction costs, but it is untrue to say that no windmills will generate as much energy as was invested in building them. In some cases, a well-situated windmill could pay back the energy costs in under three years. Data in the meme appears to be quoted from the Tesla website (900 pounds, 6,831 cells; this is old and likely varies by model). As Krieger notes, its difficult to generalize the weight and amount of materials in any given EV as each manufacturer uses a different chemistry and the chemistries are constantly changing.A 2021 article published in Nature suggested that many EV batteries contain eight kilograms of lithium, 35 kilograms of nickel, 20 kilograms of manganese, and 14 kilograms of cobalt but many companies are moving away from cobalt or advancing various technologies and the usage of certain materials. An aerial view of Moss Landing in California with the power plant pictured in the center. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digital Visual LibraryIt appears that the original poster is referencing the Moss Landing battery project that replaced an old gas plant. Currently, it measures 400 megawatts, and operators are considering doubling it. Exactly what that expansion looks like remains to be determined. In short, the post claiming that EVs are no better for the environment than other energy sources is a form of copypasta in which social media users copy and paste content without verifying the claims made within it. A look through social media confirmed that the uncited facts had been reposted numerous times. While there are elements of truth to the post, it largely overgeneralizes the science behind batteries and EVs and does not list sources to verify the claims. As such, we have rated this claim as a Mixture.

FMD_train_1819

Did Eric Trump Say His Father Would Cancel Taxes for Wealthy People?

04/17/2017

On 16 April 2017 Politicalo.com published an article suggesting that the President's son Eric Trump claimed his father was going to discontinue taxation on wealthy Americans, thereby rendering debate over the elder Trump's tax returns irrelevant: Politicalo.com article As always, his son Eric was there to provide a helping hand in defending his father. During an brief phone interview with KYXL Radio based out of Orlando, Florida, President Trumps second son argued that his fathers tax return is irrelevant, largely because he knows all there is to know about following the letter of the law, especially when it comes to paying taxes. He said, When you come from a background like the one my father comes from, you have to know all there is about paying taxes and doing your part to make this country a better place. Eric continued, And while were on the subject, I kind of have to say, its funny how taxes work. They sort of punish the hardest working and most productive members of our society while taking nothing from those who would rather be lazy and beg on the streets. Thats kind of not fair. What he have here is a system that flat out punishes those who want to contribute and make their lives better and at the same time, rewards those who want to be nothing more than dead weight. The worst part is, Im not saying something thats revolutionary here; this system has been in place ever since the country was established. My father, regardless of the fact that hes president, is just one person out of millions of those who are capable enough to be successful but are simultaneously struck down by our tax system. Thats a catastrophe ... At the end of the day, its irrelevant whether my father choses to disclose his tax return or not. It wont matter soon anyway Although Newslo (and its sibling sites Religionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo) are often identified as fake news by social media users, the claim was picked up by the hyper-partisan web site Democratic Moms and spread with fewer obvious red flags. Newslo and related sites normally start each article with a paragraph of factual information followed by the embellishments featured in its headlines. Newslos "hybrid" fake news sites include a clickable feature enabling readers to "show facts" or "hide facts." When a reader clicks "show facts," the factual portions of the article are highlighted. However, by default, all articles first appear in "hide facts" mode: Newslo Religionlo Politicops Politicalo Democratic Moms fake news As the article indicated, President Trump tweeted about his tax returns and currency manipulation on 16 April 2017: Why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korean problem? We will see what happens! Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 April 16, 2017 I did what was an almost an impossible thing to do for a Republican-easily won the Electoral College! Now Tax Returns are brought up again? Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 April 16, 2017 But as the "Show Facts" button demonstrated when activated, the Eric Trump's purported statements on taxation and wealth were fabricated:

False

On 16 April 2017 Politicalo.com published an article suggesting that the President's son Eric Trump claimed his father was going to discontinue taxation on wealthy Americans, thereby rendering debate over the elder Trump's tax returns irrelevant:Although Newslo (and its sibling sites Religionlo, Politicops, and Politicalo) are often identified as fake news by social media users, the claim was picked up by the hyper-partisan web site Democratic Moms and spread with fewer obvious red flags. Newslo and related sites normally start each article with a paragraph of factual information followed by the embellishments featured in its headlines. Newslos "hybrid" fake news sites include a clickable feature enabling readers to "show facts" or "hide facts." When a reader clicks "show facts," the factual portions of the article are highlighted. However, by default, all articles first appear in "hide facts" mode: Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017 Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 16, 2017

FMD_train_135

Obama Lends $2 Billion to Brazilian Oil Company

02/10/2010

Claim: President Obama signed an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company, with no financial gain for the U.S. false Example: [Collected via e-mail, November 2009] This is a perfect example why many refrain from watching the news on ABC, NBC, CBS, or MSNBC. Today on a segment of the "Glen Beck Show" on FOX (Fox Cable News) was the following: "Today, even though President Obama is against off shore drilling for our country, he signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company (which is the 8th largest company in the entire world) to drill for oil off the coast of Brazil! The oil that comes from this operation is for the sole purpose and use of China and NOT THE USA! Now here's the real clincher... the Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil". We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! Wait, it gets more interesting. Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. If you are able to connect the dots and follow the money, you are probably as upset as I am. Not a word of this transaction was broadcast on any of the other news networks! Forward this factual e-mail to others who care about this country and where it is going. Also, let all of your Government representatives know how you feel about this. Is this the kind of "transparency" you want from your government? Below is the Wall street Journal article to confirm this. Wall Street Journal editorial Wall Street Journal editorial Origins: The above-quoted article references a segment attributed to Fox News Channel host Glenn Beck criticizing President Obama for signing an executive order to lend $2 billion to a Brazilian oil company to finance offshore drilling, all without securing reciprocal oil exports from Brazil or any other benefit to the U.S. Nearly all of the substantive claims made in that article are false, as detailed below: [President Obama] signed an executive order to loan 2 Billion of our taxpayers dollars to a Brazilian Oil Exploration Company This statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development. Ex-Im preliminary approval The approval of the loan was an action undertaken not by officials who had been appointed by President Obama, but by his predecessor, President George W. Bush, as Ex-Im itself stated: The Bank's bipartisan Board unanimously approved the preliminary commitment to Petrobras on April 14, 2009, before any Obama appointees joined the Bank. In fact, at the time the Bank's Board consisted of three Republicans and two Democrats, all of whom were appointed by George W. Bush. Despite the claim that the money committed to Petrobras is "taxpayer dollars," Ex-Im notes that "the vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders," that "the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress," and that "the Bank's activities do not cost the American taxpayer a dime." We have absolutely no gain from this transaction whatsoever! This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States. The Ex-Im's mission statement declares: mission statement The Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im Bank) is the official export credit agency of the United States. Ex-Im Bank's mission is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets. Ex-Im Bank enables U.S. companies large and small to turn export opportunities into real sales that help to maintain and create U.S. jobs and contribute to a stronger national economy. Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras": press release I chose Brazil as my first international destination for good reason: Brazil is a powerhouse among South American economies and offers tremendous opportunities for U.S. exporters in many sectors. I want Brazilians to know that Ex-Im Bank has the will and the capacity to finance their purchases of U.S. equipment, products and services. (Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.) nominate The Chinese government is under contract to purchase all the oil that this oil field will produce, which is hundreds of millions of barrels of oil. China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields. In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019. agreed Guess who is the largest individual stockholder of this Brazilian Oil Company and who would benefit most from this? It is American BILLIONAIRE, George Soros, who was one of President Obama's most generous financial supporter during his campaign. Billionaire financier George Soros has donated large sums of money to groups that support the goals of the Democratic Party (including an estimated $23.5 million towards defeating the re-election effort of President George W. Bush in 2004), and his hedge fund (Soros Fund Management LLC) does hold stock in Petrobras. However, the implication that President Obama unilaterally directed the issuance of a loan to Petrobras as quid pro quo repayment to George Soros is erroneous since, as noted above, the loan was approved and made by a Republican-majority board of Ex-Im officials who had been appointed by George W. Bush. Soros' hedge-fund firm sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. sold sold In a letter published by the Wall Street Journal on 21 August 2009, Ex-Im president Fred P. Hochberg refuted the criticisms expressed in that newspapers' editorial of three days earlier: Your editorial "Obama Underwrites Offshore Drilling" (Aug. 18) more correctly should have read, "Obama Underwrites U.S. Jobs." That's because the mandate of the Export-Import Bank of the U.S. (Ex-Im Bank) is to help create and sustain U.S. jobs by financing U.S. exports. Our offer to provide financing to Brazil's state-owned oil company Petrobras does exactly that. That's what is behind our decision to offer at least $2 billion in loans or loan guarantees to help finance purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras. This increases the likelihood that American not foreign workers will be employed to satisfy part of the company's planned $175 billion investment during the next five years. Ex-Im Bank does not make U.S. policy. In fact, our charter prohibits us from turning down financing for either nonfinancial or noncommercial reasons, except in rare circumstances including failure to meet our environmental standards. We make no grants. The vast majority of our financing consists of guarantees of loans made by commercial lenders, not Ex-Im Bank direct loans. The foreign buyers that use Ex-Im Bank products pay us in full. Over the past 16 years the fees that we collect have netted American taxpayers more than $4.9 billion plus the jobs those exports have created. Thanks to the fees we charge, the bank is self-sustaining and does not receive any appropriated funds from Congress. At a time when jobs, and exports, are more important than ever in helping our economy recover, Ex-Im Bank is achieving its mission to keep Americans working, and we're doing it without burdening the U.S. taxpayer. Additional information: Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans Last updated: 10 February 2010

False

Wall Street Journal editorialThis statement is false: President Obama signed no such executive order. On 14 April 2009, the Export-Import Bank of the United States (Ex-Im), an agency whose mission "is to assist in financing the export of U.S. goods and services to international markets," issued a preliminary approval for a $2 billion loan to Brazil's national oil company, Petroleo Brasileiro S.A. (Petrobras), to help fund offshore oil exploration and development.This statement is also false, one predicated on the mistaken assumption that the only tangible financial benefit of lending money to Petrobras was to guarantee a supply of Brazilian oil for the United States. The Ex-Im's mission statement declares:Accordingly, as set forth in a 29 July 2009 press release, Ex-Im's chairman and president, Fred P. Hochberg, declared that the bank approved the $2 billion preliminary commitment not as a downpayment to ensure future oil purchases from Brazil by the U.S., but "to encourage purchases of U.S. goods and services by Petrobras":(Although Fred P. Hochberg is an Obama appointee, the President did not nominate Hochberg for the position of Ex-Im president until 20 April 2009, a week after the board approved the loan to Petrobras.)China does have an agreement to buy Brazilian oil from Petrobras, but not literally to purchase the entire output of Brazilian offshore oil fields. In May 2009, the China Development Bank (CDB) agreed to lend Petrobras $10 billion (five times the amount of the Ex-Im loan); in exchange, "the two sides agreed to increase actual crude oil exports from Brazil to China." At the same time, Petrobras and Sinopec (the China Petroleum and Chemical Corporation) signed a separate long-term export agreement providing for Petrobras to export 200,000 barrels of oil to China per day from 2010 to 2019.Soros' hedge-fund firm sold off 5 million of its 37 million Petrobras shares in May 2009, and the firm sold off another 22 million shares in August 2009, before Petrobras received any loan funds from Ex-Im. Facts About the Proposed Ex-Im Bank Loans

FMD_train_602

Does Pelosi Want 'Guaranteed Minimum Incomes' for 'Illegal Aliens' in Next COVID-19 Stimulus?

05/11/2020

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

False

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

FMD_train_1778

Obama Places Limits on Church Services

04/14/2015

Claim: President Obama has limited churches to offering twice-monthly services. Example: [Collected via Twitter, April 2015] Is this true about Obama? Is he really making people go to church two times a month instead of four times? Origins: On April 8, 2015, the News Examiner website published an article reporting that President Obama had limited churches to offering twice-monthly services in order to ensure Americans worked harder. The article stated, "At a press conference today, President Barack Obama announced he would be implementing a new law changing the current monthly four-week church services down to two times a month. Obama says during these rough economic times it is crucial to take drastic measures so Americans can work harder and pray less. These changes are set to take place on May 1st of this year, and analysts expect this move to increase the economy by more than 40%. Americans tend to work hard and pray harder. I'm asking them to make these changes for the good of the country during these hard times. If things don't work out within six months, we can always switch back to the old way, but for now, let's give this a solid shot and see where it takes us. These are crucial times, my friends, and we must stick together as a country if we are going to succeed. If you have any questions about President Obama's new two-week church schedule that will be taking place on May 1st, a hotline has been set up to answer all your questions at (785) 273-0325." President Obama could not have made any such announcement, as he has no authority to limit church services, and any attempt to do so would be an obvious violation of the First Amendment's protections of religious freedom. The referenced article was just another hoax from the News Examiner, a fake news site started by Paul Horner, the former lead writer for the similarly fake National Report website, after Facebook implemented a crackdown on the posting of hoax articles that virtually destroyed the latter site's reach. Previous hoaxes from the same site include the false claim that the world's first head transplant was successfully performed in South Africa in April 2015. The "hotline" phone number provided in the article is actually that of the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. Last updated: April 14, 2015.

False

Origins: On 8 April 2015, the News Examiner web site published an article reporting that President Obama had limited churches to offering twice-monthly services in order to ensure Americans worked harder:President Obama could not have made any such announcement, as he has no authority to limit church services, and any attempt to do so would be an obvious violation of the First Amendment's protections of religious freedom. The referenced article was a just another hoax from the News Examiner, a fake news site started by Paul Horner, the former lead writer for the similarly fake National Report web site, after Facebook implemented a crackdown on the posting of hoax articles that virtually destroyed the latter site's reach. Previous hoaxes from the same site include the false claim that the world's first head transplant was successfully performed in South Africa in April 2015.

FMD_train_886

John Stossel Fired?

11/05/2009

Claim: ABC News' 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel was fired for trying to air a piece critical of health care reform. Example: [Collected via e-mail, October 2009] Amazing that John Stossel, the beauty boy of ABC and who was the true investigative reporter for the truly non-political program 20/20 program was fired when he tried to run this. Anyone know what is going on? Everyone like the change? Now you can hear and see WHY John was fired!!! (Where was Obama?> The following link is to John Stossel's ABC (20-20) special that was delayed by ABC until after Henry Waxman's House committee voted on HR3200. Possibly you have already seen it because, thank goodness, a lot of people have discovered it and are forwarding it to everyone they know. ABC's John Stossel Destroys/Pulverizes/Crushes Obama's anti-American 'Health Care' Plan https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062 https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062 Origins: In September 2009, John Stossel, who had been a part of ABC News' popular 20/20 television program since 1981 (and had co-anchored the show since 2003), announced he was leaving that network for FOX: John Stossel FOX Award-winning journalist John Stossel has signed a multi-year deal with FOX Business Network and the FOX News Channel. Stossel, who is best known for his work on ABC's "20/20," will anchor a one-hour, weekly program on FOX Business, entitled "Stossel." It will debut in the fourth quarter of 2009 in FOX Business's prime-time lineup. The program will look at consumer-focused topics, such as civil liberties, the business of health care and free trade. Contrary to what is claimed above, no one involved not ABC, Fox, or John Stossel himself reported or claimed that Stossel had been "fired" (for "trying to run a program on health care" or any other reason). John Stossel voluntarily chose to leave ABC and take up a better opportunity with Fox: In a post on his ABC blog, Mr. Stossel said he wanted to "dig into the meaning of the words 'liberty' and 'limited government'" on the program. "ABC enabled me to do some of that, but Fox offers me more air time and a new challenge," he added. In a statement, ABC News wished Mr. Stossel well and said he would be "an asset to Fox News in this next chapter of his terrific career." It is true that John Stossel expressed disappointment with ABC's delayed airing of his critical piece on the Canadian health care system("Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation?"), but even he acknowledged that the piece was pushed back four weeks from its original air date to accommodate more timely (and ratings-garnering) coverage about Michael Jackson, who had just died, and not because it was deliberately delayed until after a House committee vote on health care reform. As he wrote on his ABC blog on 29 June 2009: Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation? Here's one blog comment, after I reported that ABC will hold my health care report in favor of more Michael Jackson coverage: Free market in action. See there Stossel? What's not to like about that?Posted by: jan | Jun 26, 2009 5:12:12 PM p.s. Stossel. You've been hoisted on your own petard. Cheerio. Jan is right. It's the free market in action. Of course, maybe my bosses made the wrong choice. Maybe more viewers would have tuned in for my health care report. But the beauty of the market is that if they regularly choose wrong, they will go bankrupt. Networks better at giving the public what we want will take their business. Id rather have viewers vote with their remotes than have elites govern our choices, making sure we watch "serious" programming. Yes, I am sick of the coverage of Michael Jackson. I hate it that ABC didn't run my piece. Free markets sometimes encourage pandering to the masses. I still say, bless the market. The good outweighs the bad. Free speech means rude obscenity and hate speech. I treasure free speech too. Last updated: 5 November 2009 FOX Business. "John Stossel to Join FOX Business Network." 10 September 2009.

NEI

https://abcnews.go.com/video/playerIndex?id=7903062Origins: In September 2009, John Stossel, who had been a part of ABC News' popular 20/20 television program since 1981 (and had co-anchored the show since 2003), announced he was leaving that network for FOX: It is true that John Stossel expressed disappointment with ABC's delayed airing of his critical piece on the Canadian health care system("Canadian Health Care: The End of Innovation?"), but even he acknowledged that the piece was pushed back four weeks from its original air date to accommodate more timely (and ratings-garnering) coverage about Michael Jackson, who had just died, and not because it was deliberately delayed until after a House committee vote on health care reform. As he wrote on his ABC blog on 29 June 2009:

FMD_train_424

Who is responsible for the rise in the debt?

01/23/2012

Debt is typically a major campaign issue in elections, from the municipal level all the way up to the office of the President of the United States. Candidates tout their accomplishments in balancing budgets or reducing government debt as examples of fiscal prudence while pointing to increased debts during their opponents' administrations as indicators of profligate and wasteful spending of taxpayers' money. The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempts to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for significant increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt. As a first step in evaluating this chart, we must determine the applicable definition of "debt." In general, the term "public debt" (or "debt held by the public") refers to money borrowed by the government through the issuance and sale of securities, government bonds, and bills. It includes federal debt held by all investors outside of the federal government, including individuals, corporations, state or local governments, the Federal Reserve banking system, and foreign governments. Another form of debt is "intragovernmental debt" (or "debt held by government accounts"), which refers to money that the government has borrowed from itself, such as when the U.S. government invests money from federal savings programs like Medicare and the Social Security trust fund by purchasing its own treasury securities. A variety of names have been applied to the total of these two forms of debt, including "gross federal debt," "total public debt," and "national debt." Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former). We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. From these records, we gleaned the following information: Ronald Reagan: Took office January 1981. Total debt: $848 billion. Left office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion. Percent change in total debt: +218%. George H.W. Bush: Took office January 1989. Total debt: $2,698 billion. Left office January 20, 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion. Percent change in total debt: +55%. Bill Clinton: Took office January 20, 1993. Total debt: $4,188 billion. Left office January 20, 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion. Percent change in total debt: +37%. George W. Bush: Took office January 20, 2001. Total debt: $5,728 billion. Left office January 20, 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion. Percent change in total debt: +86%. Barack Obama: Took office January 20, 2009. Total debt: $10,627 billion. Total debt (as of the end of April 2011): $14,288 billion. Percent change in total debt: +34%. As far as raw numbers go, the chart is reasonably accurate (although our calculations produced a somewhat higher debt increase for Ronald Reagan than reported). That said, we must consider how valuable these numbers are; whether by themselves they present a reasonable comparative measure of presidential fiscal responsibility. In that regard, one could find several aspects to take issue with: the chart isn't a true comparison of equals, as it includes three presidents who served two full terms (Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush), a president who served one term (George H.W. Bush), and a president who served half a term (Obama). Obviously, the longer a president holds office, the greater the opportunity for him to influence the debt, and certainly (barring a radical change in current circumstances) the increase reported for Barack Obama would be considerably higher by the time he left office. All presidents come into office with policies and budgets that were put into place by their predecessors in the White House and Congress, and they all pass the same along to their successors when they leave office. Therefore, determining how much of the change in debt that occurs during a given president's administration is actually the result of his actions (rather than the consequence of factors over which he had little or no influence) would require a much more complex analysis than the one presented here. Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two? As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: Debt held by the public approximates current federal demand on credit markets. It represents a burden on today's economy, and the interest paid on this debt represents a burden on current taxpayers. Federal borrowing from the public absorbs resources available for private investment and may put upward pressure on interest rates. Further, debt held by the public is the accumulation of what the federal government borrowed in the past and is reported as a liability on the balance sheet of the government's consolidated financial statements. In contrast, debt held by government accounts (intragovernmental debt) and the interest on it represent a claim on future resources. This debt performs largely an internal accounting function. Special federal securities credited to government accounts (primarily trust funds) represent the cumulative surpluses of these accounts that have been lent to the general fund. These transactions net out on the government's consolidated financial statements. Debt issued to government accounts does not affect today's economy and does not currently compete with the private sector for available funds in the credit market. Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance? Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart that tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above. All in all, this is a case of relatively accurate information that is of marginal value due to a lack of proper comparative context.

True

The chart reproduced above, which was posted to the Flickr account of House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, attempted to reverse conventional political stereotypes by portraying recent Republican presidents as responsible for huge increases in the national debt, while showing recent Democratic presidents as responsible for much lower increases in the level of debt. Although this chart is labeled as presenting a "percent increase in public debt," it actually uses figures corresponding to the total described as "gross federal debt" above (i.e., a combination of debt held by the public and debt held by government accounts, rather than just the former). We checked the numbers in this chart by using (for pre-1993 years) the U.S. Treasury's Monthly Statement of the Public Debt (MSPD), noting the total debt reported as of January 31 of each relevant year, and (for 1993 onwards) the Treasury's The Debt to the Penny and Who Holds It application, noting the total debt reported as of Inauguration Day of each relevant year. Which is the best measure of debt for this purpose: public debt, intragovernmental debt, or a combination of the two? As noted in the General Accounting Office's FAQ on Federal Debt, they represent rather different concepts: Are plain percentage changes in the national debt level a useful figure, or do they need to be placed in context to have relevance? Some would argue, for example, that the Debt-to-GDP ratio is a better measure of economic health relative to the national debt than raw debt figures alone, and a chart which tracked the change in that ratio over the last several presidencies would paint a significantly different picture of debt levels than the one displayed above.

FMD_train_1414

Is Oakland Offering "Guaranteed Income" Only to People of Color?

04/05/2021

On March 23, 2021, The Associated Press reported on an initiative in Oakland, California, named Oakland Resilient Families, "that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it." This "demonstration project," as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf described it, is a test of what is known as a "guaranteed income." Projects like this one are part of a larger effort by a coalition of mayors to convince Congress to pass a national guaranteed income program. The Oakland program is not taxpayer-funded; all of the funding comes from charitable donations, most of which are from a philanthropic nonprofit group named Blue Meridian Partners, according to San Francisco-based NPR station KQED. Half of the program's 600 participants will be families earning below 50% of the city's median income, while the other half will come from families earning below 138% of the federal poverty level. These cut-offs were selected based on data provided by Oakland's Equality Index, which is an effort "to develop a baseline quantitative framework that can be used by City staff and community members alike to better understand the impacts of race, measure inequities, and track changes in the disparities for different groups over time." In their coverage, The Associated Press described the project as "the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous, and people of color communities." At the time of the reporting, this was a fair representation of Oakland Resilient Families' goals, as the program's website, as well as the mayor, explicitly stated that the program was intended for "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) families." That reporting led to tabloid headlines and angry tweets. Following this latter coverage, Oakland Resilient Families changed its website's answer to the "Who is this for?" question to "families with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index, with low incomes and at least one child under 18, regardless of documentation status." Explaining the change to KQED, Rae Oglesby, the vice president of membership and communications at the Family Independence Initiative, a partner with the Oakland Resilient Families program, said the program is targeting racial groups experiencing the largest disparities, but that "it is open to all residents." Justin Berton, the communications director for Mayor Schaaf, told KQED, "We have not changed the program. We have had to clarify that while no family is prohibited from applying, this pilot is intentionally designed to serve and support BIPOC families, who evidence shows suffer the greatest and most disproportionate impacts of poverty." According to Oakland's Equality Index, the median income for white households in Oakland was almost three times the median income of African American households. The median income for white households was highest ($110,000), while the median income for African American households was lowest ($37,500). The median income for Asian households ($76,000) was similar to the citywide median income ($73,200), while Latino households fell below the citywide median with a median income of $65,000. The program is still in its earliest phases. At the moment, sign-ups for the program are not yet available. "The goal," Oakland Resilient Families' website states, "is to begin payments to families this spring after incorporating more community feedback and to have the entire program up and running this summer." Because the program is "targeted" toward BIPOC families, but at least after some clarification on the part of Oakland Resilient Families, any family meeting the financial requirements can apply, we rate this claim a "Mixture" of truth.

NEI

On March 23, 2021, The Associated Press reported on an Oakland, California, initiative named Oakland Resilient Families "that will give low-income families of color $500 per month with no rules on how they can spend it." This "demonstration project," as Oakland Mayor Libby Schaaf described it, is a test of what is known as a "guaranteed income."Projects like this one are part of a larger effort by a coalition of mayors to convince Congress to pass a national guaranteed income program. The Oakland program is not tax-payer funded, however. All of the funding comes from charitable donations, most of it from a philanthropic non-profit group named Blue Meridian Partners," according to San Francisco-based NPR station KQED.Half of the program's 600 participants will be families earning below 50% of the city's median income, and the other half will come from families earning below 138% of the federal poverty level. These cut-offs were selected based on data provided by Oakland's Equality Index, which is an effort "to develop a baseline quantitative framework that can be used by City staff and community members alike to better understand the impacts of race, measure inequities, and track changes in the disparities for different groups over time."In their coverage, The Associated Press described the project as "the first program to limit participation strictly to Black, Indigenous and people of color communities." At the time of the reporting, this was a fair representation of Oakland Resilient Families goals, as the program's website as well as the mayor explicitly stated the program was intended for "Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) families."That reporting led to tabloid headlines and angry tweets:Following this latter coverage, Oakland Resilient Families changed its website's answer to the "Who is this for?" question to "families with the greatest wealth disparities per the Oakland Equity Index, with low-incomes and at least 1 child under 18, regardless of documentation status."Explaining the change to KQED, Rae Oglesby, the vice president of membership and communications at the Family Independence Initiative a partner with the Oakland Resilient Families program said the program is targeting racial groups experiencing the largest disparities," but that "it is open to all residents."Justin Berton, the communications director for Mayor Schaaf, told KQED that, We have not changed the program. We have had to clarify that while no family is prohibited from applying, this pilot is intentionally designed to serve and support BIPOC families, who evidence shows suffer the greatest and most disproportionate impacts of poverty."According to Oakland's Equality Index, the median income for white households in Oakland was almost three times the median income of African American households:The program is still in its earliest phases. At the moment, sign-ups for the program are not yet available. "The goal," Oakland Resilient Families' website states, "is to begin payments to families this spring after incorporating more community feedback and to have the entire program up and running this summer."

FMD_train_1938

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

11/02/2021

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

False

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

FMD_train_1916

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

11/04/2014

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

False

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

FMD_train_826

2011 W-2 Tax Forms and HR3590

05/25/2010

Claim: Starting in 2011, all employees will have to pay taxes on the value of health insurance provided by their employers. Example: [Collected via e-mail, May 2010] I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. The Aid directed me to go to www.thomas.gov, enter HR 3590 in the search box and look for summaries. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. It does not matter if that's a private concern or Governmental body of some sort. If you're retired? So what; your gross WILL go up by the amount of insurance you get. You will be required to pay taxes on a large sum of money that you have never seen. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year. For many it also puts you into a new higher bracket so it's even worse. This is how the government is going to buy insurance for 15% that don't have insurance and it's only part of the tax increases. Not believing this I researched the summaries and here's what I'm reading: On page 25 of 29:TITLE IX REVENUE PROVISIONS- SUBTITLE A: REVENUE OFFSET PROVISIONS - (sec. 9001, as modified by sec. 10901) Sec.9002."requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income." Joan Pryde is the senior tax editor for the Kiplinger letters. Go to Kiplinger's and read about 13 tax changes that could affect you. Number 3 is what I just told you about. Why am I sending you this? The same reason I hope you forward this to every single person in your address book. People have the right to know the truth because an election is coming in November and we need to vote in Conservatives that will repel this horrid law! Origins: This is another case of a legislative issue which has a kernel of truth to it, but which has been misinterpreted, affects only a small percentage of the population, and has misleadingly been blown out of proportion through someone's mistaken assumption that it applies to everyone. Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms. However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only. (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.) Section 106A The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage." This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers. Title IX, Sec. 9001 In general, beginning in 2018 (not 2011), the PPACA imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of employer-sponsored medical insurance that exceeds a given threshold (initially $27,500 annually). This excise tax would be paid by the insurance company, not the employee, and is initially expected to affect fewer than 10% of families covered by health insurance: Many employers pay most of the premium for health coverage. Workers pick up the rest but pay no taxes on the employer's often-substantial contribution. That's why many unions have bargained hard for generous health coverage over the years, even if that meant forgoing a bigger pay raise. The new agreement would take away the tax advantage for a small portion of the health benefit by imposing a 40 percent tax on the amount by which the premiums for employer-sponsored health coverage exceed specified thresholds. That would be $27,500 a year for a family, starting in 2018. The tax on a $29,500 plan would be $800, or 40 percent of $2,000. The insurance company would pay the tax but would almost certainly pass it along to the employer and its employees. That $27,500 threshold is well above the current average of $13,400 for a family plan. By 2016, more than 80 percent of all family plans are projected to still fall below the threshold. In the following years, the tax threshold would rise more slowly than the likely rate of inflation in medical costs, which could mean the plans of millions of workers a small minority of the work force would be subject to the tax in theory. Most likely, insurers will drop their premiums just below the threshold. They could do that by setting higher deductibles and co-payments, managing access to care more tightly, or reducing benefits. Last updated: 25 May 2010 The New York Times. "Cadillac Plans." 15 January 2010. The Washington Post. "Will President Obama Defend the 'Cadillac Tax' to Cut Health-Care Costs?" 12 January 2010.

False

Section 9002 of PPACA, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (H.R. 3590), requires that all employers, beginning in 2011, report the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health benefits they provide to employees on those employees' W-2 forms. However, the monetary values so reported will neither be counted as gross income nor will they be taxed; they will be included for informational purposes only. (Section 106A of the Internal Revenue Code states that, in general, employer-provided health coverage is not taxable to the employee.)The portion (Title IX, Sec. 9001) of the PPACA referenced above is entitled "Excise Tax on High Cost Employer-Sponsored Coverage." This is the section of the recently passed health care reform legislation that addresses taxing so-called high-level "Cadillac" health care plans that some employees receive through their employers.

FMD_train_612

Man Catches Furry Trout in Wisconsin?

05/17/2015

On 5 May 2015, a photograph purportedly showing a fisherman holding a furry trout was posted on the website of a local Wisconsin news station. The caption read: "Wanted to share a rather remarkable catch I had this afternoon. I was fishing the Menomonee River, where some trout were packed into a bottleneck. I caught a few, and nothing was out of the ordinary until I reeled this one in. I have never seen anything like it. I contacted a local wildlife official, and they referred to it as a rare fur-bearing trout. They went on to explain that this was an extreme case of Saprolegnia, or cotton mold. Apparently, old Great Lakes legends spoke of these as a uniquely evolved trout species that existed only in the deepest, coldest parts of the lakes and needed the fur to stay warm. I doubt it will make Cabella's non-traditional mount wall, but I'm still excited to reel in a genuine Wisconsin legend! You have my permission to share and use this photo in any form you'd like. You can credit George Weber. I'm a 41-year-old carpenter and live in Wauwatosa. The image was picked up by several websites such as Unexplained Mysteries and Cult of Weird, and soon prompted an Internet debate about the existence of furry trout. Although there is no species of fish called "furry trout," a genus of freshwater mold (also called cotton mold) known as Saprolegnia does grow on diseased fish and lends them a somewhat furred appearance. But unlike the picture of the fish seen in the above-displayed photograph, this mold typically grows in patches and doesn't resemble fluffy white fur. So if this fish isn't suffering from Saprolegnia, then is this a real furry trout? Stories about fur-bearing trout have been circulating for years, but that mythical creature still exists only in the imaginary realm. One common form of the myth is that the species came about as the result of a hair tonic spill in the Arkansas River, while another theory holds that this furry fish evolved to grow a thick coat in order to survive in the cold waters of Alaska. Some of those tall tales of the West are partly true, no matter how ridiculous they sound. As noted in the first installment of Roaming Wyoming, jackalopes may be fake, but science does support the existence of rabbits that may look like they have horns. Is there a factual basis behind the story of the fur-bearing trout? So far, not one has been found—just plenty of good-natured humor. The fur-bearing trout, also called the furry fish, beaver trout, or (probably jokingly) the sabled salmon, is said to live wherever water becomes cold enough to warrant a warm winter coat. This includes all of Canada and most of the far northern states of the United States, including Wyoming. The most publicized encounter with the fur-bearing trout appeared in a 1929 issue of Montana Wildlife magazine, the official publication of the Montana State Fish and Game Department. Mr. J.H. Hicken of Whitefish, Montana, told his story in colorful detail. Mr. Hicken snagged a furry fish at a lake in Glacier National Park, where the water was so cold it was below the freezing point. But, "Nature has taken care of her own by providing the fish with a thick coat of fur," Mr. Hicken remarked. He did add that since the fish are so cold, "the change of temperature from this water to the atmosphere is so great that the fish explodes upon being taken from the water, and fur and skin come off in one perfect piece, making it available for commercial purposes, and leaving the body of the fish for refrigerator purposes or eating, as desired." Real furry trout do not exist, but these fictional creatures can sometimes be spotted mounted on the walls of hunting lodges and museums. According to The Beasts That Hide from Man: Seeking the World's Last Undiscovered Animals, one of the most famous examples of the furry trout was hanging in the Royal Museum of Scotland until it was revealed to be a hoax. A local taxidermist admitted that he had covered the fish with white rabbit fur. While we can't definitively say if this Wisconsin fisherman covered his fish in rabbit fur, it's clear that this catch has more in common with a widely spread hoax than it does with freshwater mold.

False

On 5 May 2015, a photograph purportedly showing a fisherman holding a furry trout was posted to the web site of a local Wisconsin news station:The image was picked up by several web sites such as Unexplained Mysteries and Cult of Weird and soon prompted an Internet debate about the existence of furry trout. Although there is no species of fish called "furry trout," a genus of freshwater mold (also called cotton mold) known as Saprolegnia does grow on diseased fish and lends them a somewhat furred appearance. But unlike the picture of the fish seen in the above-displayed photograph, this mold typically grows in patches and doesn't resemble fluffy white fur:Stories about fur-bearing trout have been circulating for years, but that mythical creature still exists only in the imaginary realm. One common form of the myth is that the species came about as the result of a hair tonic spill in the Arkansas river, while another theory holds that this furry fish evolved to grow a thick coat in order to survive in the cold waters of Alaska:Real furry trout do not exist, but these fictional creatures can sometimes be spotted mounted on the walls of hunting lodges and museums. According to The Beasts That Hide from Man: Seeking the World's Last Undiscovered Animals, one of the most famous examples of the furry trout was hanging in the Royal Museum of Scotland until it was revealed to be a hoax. A local taxidermist admitted that he had covered the fish with white rabbit fur:

FMD_train_460

Did Musk Say 'I Hate When People Confuse Education with Intelligence'?

05/09/2022

On April 30, 2022, a Facebook user posted what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet in which Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence. You can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot." However, we were unable to find any record of him ever tweeting or saying these words. The Facebook post looked like this: This quote received numerous comments where users simply posted, "So true!" We have found in the past that these two words can be a red flag indicating that the person to whom a quote was attributed might not be its true originator. The first instance of Musk's name being attached to the quote appeared to occur on April 29, 2020. On that day, a Twitter user replied to a tweet from Musk with a similar quote about confusing "education with intelligence." Days later, on May 4, another user tweeted the same quote, giving credit for the statement to Musk. From there, it was shared for the next two years as if Musk had actually said the words. During our research, we found other instances of the same quote attributed (in some instances, verbatim) to physicist Richard Feynman, author Mark Twain, and film actors Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman. A quick search of Google Books and Newspapers.com showed that various people had been cautioning others not to confuse education with intelligence since at least the 1920s. For example, in a 1922 issue of the "Printer's Ink" periodical, one line read, "Do not confuse education and experience." The next sentence discussed "intelligence." In 1932, author Sadie Myers Shellow wrote in the book, "How to Develop Your Personality," the words, "Many people confuse education and intelligence." In 1941, a witness on the stand during a New York Court of Appeals hearing said, "I never confuse education with intelligence. They are two different things." On March 29, 1952, Dr. George W. Crane answered questions in a column titled, "The Worry Clinic." It was printed in The Charlotte News, a North Carolina newspaper. In one answer, Crane said, "You readers must never confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.' A mountaineer who cannot read may still have high mental horsepower or intelligence. You can thus have a brilliant mind, yet never have graduated from grammar school." On Dec. 7, 1977, Max Rafferty answered several questions in a column printed in The Pensacola News, a Florida newspaper. One of his answers to a reader identified as "N.J.S." was similar to the quote that was misattributed to Musk. It said, in part, "Don't ever confuse education with intelligence, N.J.S. Some of the biggest jackasses I've ever known had doctoral degrees." Basically, we found dozens of examples of various people from past decades expressing the same thought about education and intelligence that would later be attributed to Musk. Rafferty's words in the 1977 newspaper column came fairly close, with "doctoral degrees" taking the place of "bachelor's degree." In sum, no, Musk did not tweet or originate the words, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence," nor did he say, "you can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot."

False

On April 30, 2022, a Facebook user posted what appeared to be a screenshot of a tweet in which Tesla CEO Elon Musk said, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence. You can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot." However, we were unable to find any record that he ever tweeted or said these words.This quote had plenty of comments where users had simply posted, "So true!" We've found in the past that these two words can be a red flag indicating that the person to whom a quote was attributed might not be its true originator.The first instance of Musk's name being attached to the quote appeared to occur on April 29, 2020. On that day, a Twitter user replied to a tweet from Musk with a similar quote about confusing "education with intelligence." Days later, on May 4, another user tweeted the same quote, giving credit for the statement to Musk. From there, it was shared for the next two years as if Musk had actually said the words.During our research, we found other instances of the same quote attributed (in some instances, verbatim) to physicist Richard Feynman, author Mark Twain, and film actors Jack Nicholson, Clint Eastwood, and Morgan Freeman.A quick search of Google Books and Newspapers.com showed that various people had been cautioning others to not confuse education with intelligence since at least the 1920s.For example, in a 1922 issue of the "Printer's Ink" periodical, one line read, "Do not confuse education and experience." The next sentence discussed "intelligence."In 1932, author Sadie Myers Shellow wrote in the book, "How to Develop Your Personality," the words, "Many people confuse education and intelligence."In 1941, a witness on the stand during a New York Court of Appeals hearing said the words, "I never confuse education with intelligence. They are two different things."On March 29, 1952, Dr. George W. Crane answered questions in a column titled, "The Worry Clinic." It was printed in The Charlotte News, a North Carolina newspaper. In one answer, Crane said, "You readers must never confuse 'education' with 'intelligence.' A mountaineer who cannot read may still have high mental horse power or intelligence. You can thus have a brilliant mind, yet never have graduated from grammar school."On Dec. 7, 1977, Max Rafferty answered several questions in a column printed in The Pensacola News, a Florida newspaper. One of his answers to a reader identified as "N.J.S." was similar to the quote that was misattributed to Musk. It said, in part, "Don't ever confuse education with intelligence, N.J.S. Some of the biggest jackasses I've ever known had doctoral degrees."Basically, we found dozens of examples of various people from past decades expressing the same thought about education and intelligence that would later be attributed to Musk. Rafferty's words in the 1977 newspaper column came fairly close, with "doctoral degrees" taking the place of "bachelor's degree."In sum, no, Musk did not tweet or originate the words, "I hate when people confuse education with intelligence," nor did he say, "you can have a bachelor's degree and still be an idiot."

FMD_train_459

Justin Trudeau is planning to grant pardons to all individuals who have been convicted of a marijuana-related offense.

07/18/2016

In July 2016, a image picturing Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was circulated with text stating that he had freed everyone imprisoned for marijuana offences and expunged their records, and that he was able to enact such a sweeping reform because Canada (unlike the U.S.) has no "prison for profit" facilities: However, the claim originated not with a news report of any such reform act, but with an article published by the Global Sun on 3 July 2016: A press conference was held last night by The Liberal Party of Canada, on behalf of newly-elected Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau about future marijuana laws and regulations. 30 minutes into the conference, Trudeau announced the big news that all members of the parliament have agreed to and that is pardoning all Canadian prisoners who have been convicted of a minor or major offence of marijuana. The Global Sun is a satirical publication that does not publish factual stories: The Global Sun is a satire website, articles/post on the website are all made-up stories and should not be taken seriously. Although Prime Minister Trudeau has not freed all those convicted of marijuana-related offences from prison, real news suggests Canada may be moving toward legalizing the drug in 2017: legalizing Canada's Liberal Party government will introduce a law next spring to legalize recreational marijuana, Health Minister Jane Philpott disclosed last week at the United Nations. She did not detail who would be allowed to grow or distribute cannabis products. Canada has a lot of options here, said RAND Drug Policy Research Center co-director Beau Kilmer. You have to pay attention to what's going to happen with the regulation and the taxes. That could really shape what happens in terms of people coming in from other countries. You have to decide whether you want to allow that.

False

Although Prime Minister Trudeau has not freed all those convicted of marijuana-related offences from prison, real news suggests Canada may be moving toward legalizing the drug in 2017: