Datasets:

kkawamu1

/

fmd_train_val

like 0

FMD_train_235

Since 1965, California has built six (college) campuses but 23 prisons.

11/09/2017

Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinbills herself as the education candidate. She has, after all, spent her career in education - serving as a community college professor, as the states superintendent of public instruction and on the boards of the University of California and California State University systems. Early in her campaign, the Democratic candidate has called for a reinvestment in education, including funding for universal preschool and tuition-free college. Also on the topic of higher education, Eastin has claimed in recent months that California has failed to prioritize college construction in favor of prisons. Weve built six total (college) campuses one UC, three CSUs, two community colleges since 1965. Thats six campuses but 23 prisons, Eastin said in aninterview with Capital Public Radioon Oct. 16, 2017. This is not the only time Eastin has made this colleges-to-prisons comparison. In May, during herspeechat the 2017 California Democratic Party State Convention, Eastin asserted that California had built just six colleges but 22 prisons since 1985. Was Eastin right? Has California built nearly four times as many prisons as colleges since 1965, or perhaps since 1985? We set out on a fact check. Our research First, we looked at prisons. The portion of Eastins claim about 23 prisons built since 1965 is correct, according to achronological listproduced by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Twenty-one have opened since 1985. Altogether, California operates 35 state prisons and houses about 129,000 inmates, according to a March 2017reportby the California Legislative Analysts Office. California is also home to 12 federal prisons. But because the state is not responsible for their construction or operation, we have decided not to include them. Colleges A glance at the history of the UC and CSU systems shows Eastin is again correct, at least on this portion of her claim: The University of California at Merced opened in 2005, the lone campus in the 10-campus UC system added since 1965. Meanwhile, the state has constructed three California State University campuses during this period: Cal State San Marcos in 1990, Cal State Monterey Bay in 1995 and Cal State Channel Islands in 2002. They are the newest additions to the 23-campus CSU system. We found, however, a glaring error on Eastins count of community colleges. There have been 41 of those campuses built since 1965 -- not the two she claimed in the radio interview. Thats according to a list on the California Community Colleges Chancellors Officewebsite. See a list of the colleges below: I think it speaks to the important role that California community colleges play in meeting local education demand, said Erik Skinner, the community college systems deputy chancellor, about the pace of construction. Skinner said the system has also opened 70 smaller community college satellite centers, across the state during this period. Nine of the systems full-scale community colleges have been built since 1985, again far more than the two Eastin claimed for this time period in her convention speech. An error in good faith Eastins spokesman Jon Murchinson acknowledged the inaccuracy of the community college statistic -- a figure that greatly throws off her six colleges to 23 prisons comparison. He told PolitiFact California it was an error in good faith as (Eastin) had heard the number from someone, and that she regrets using it without verifying the source. He said she wont be using it in the future. While Eastin missed the mark, a look at campus data shows the California community college system has significantly slowed its pace of construction. It built a combined 32 campuses in the 1960s and 70s but only nine in the nearly four decades after. Skinner, the systems deputy chancellor, said construction is driven by population growth and economic conditions, which fueled the campus boom in the 60s and 70s. It has focused on adding to its existing colleges and on student completion rates in recent decades. Our ruling In a recent Capital Public Radio interview, candidate for California governor Delaine Eastin claimed the state has built only six college campuses, including two community colleges, but 23 prisons since 1965. Eastin was right in her count of state prisons. But she was way off the mark on colleges: California has opened 41 community colleges, three California State University campuses and one University of California campus for a total of 45 campuses since 1965. Eastin made a similar claim at the California Democratic Convention in May, though she used a more recent timeline. She said California had built just six colleges but 22 prisons since 1985. That statement is also inaccurate. Eastins campaign told us the candidate made a mistake and will correct her figures in future statements. We rate Eastins claim from her radio interview False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. PolitiFact California intern Kathryn Palmer contributed research and writing for this article. Governors race Delaine Eastinis among several Democratic candidates competing to succeed Jerry Brown in the 2018 California governor's race. Others include former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa; California TreasurerJohn Chiang; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Republican candidates include state AssemblymanTravis Allenand San Diego businessmanJohn Cox. PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in this race. See ourTracking The Truthgovernors race fact-checkshere. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook.

False

Candidate for California governorDelaine Eastinbills herself as the education candidate. She has, after all, spent her career in education - serving as a community college professor, as the states superintendent of public instruction and on the boards of the University of California and California State University systems.Weve built six total (college) campuses one UC, three CSUs, two community colleges since 1965. Thats six campuses but 23 prisons, Eastin said in aninterview with Capital Public Radioon Oct. 16, 2017.This is not the only time Eastin has made this colleges-to-prisons comparison. In May, during herspeechat the 2017 California Democratic Party State Convention, Eastin asserted that California had built just six colleges but 22 prisons since 1985.The portion of Eastins claim about 23 prisons built since 1965 is correct, according to achronological listproduced by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. Twenty-one have opened since 1985.Altogether, California operates 35 state prisons and houses about 129,000 inmates, according to a March 2017reportby the California Legislative Analysts Office.There have been 41 of those campuses built since 1965 -- not the two she claimed in the radio interview. Thats according to a list on the California Community Colleges Chancellors Officewebsite.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.Delaine Eastinis among several Democratic candidates competing to succeed Jerry Brown in the 2018 California governor's race. Others include former Los Angeles MayorAntonio Villaraigosa; California TreasurerJohn Chiang; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor.Republican candidates include state AssemblymanTravis Allenand San Diego businessmanJohn Cox.PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in this race. See ourTracking The Truthgovernors race fact-checkshere.Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook.

FMD_train_1704

Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP.

04/27/2010

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is pushing a proposal to cap the sizes of large banks. He appeared on ABC News'This Weekwith Jake Tapper to talk about that, as well as Democratic efforts to pass financial reform.Let me give you one statistic, if I could, Jake, Brown said. Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP, 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP... We've got to deal with risk to be sure, but we've got to deal with the size of these banks, because if one of these banks is in serious trouble, it will have such a ripple effect on the whole economy. So we simply can't let them get this big and have this kind of economic power over Main Street, over a small business in Canton, Ohio, or a worker -- a manufacturing plant in Dayton. I mean, we just can't let this happen.Some very smart people disagree on Brown's point that big banks resist regulation by reason of their sheer mass.People likeSimon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, urge measures that would limit the size of the biggest banks. Meanwhile, people likePaul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winningNew York Timescolumnist, say that breaking up the banks isn't necessary to avert the next meltdown if the proper regulations are put in place.We were interested in Brown's statistic though: That 15 years ago the top six banks' assets totaled 17 percent of GDP, while today that's 63 percent.Brown's staff said he got the numbers from13 Bankers:The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, a book by Johnson and James Kwak, that describes the financial crisis and advocates steps for reform, including limits on the size of banks. Johnson also cited the number in an article in theNew Republic, co-written with Peter Boone, thatcriticizedPresident Barack Obama for not pushing rules that are tougher on big banks.The numbers are a fairly straightforward calculation. You take the bank's total assets, such as loans, cash and securities. (Remember that to banks, a loan is an asset, since they make money off loans.) Then you divide by GDP, which is gross domestic product, and is the total economic output for a country during a given year. Last year, the U.S. gross domestic product was $14.3 trillion.Johnson's book lists the six biggest banks of 2009 as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.The numbers in the book looked right to us, but we wanted to find an outside expert to confirm it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia agreed to run the numbers to see if they got the same thing.Sure enough, they found the same thing. The figures were off by a few percentage points because the researchers were able to use numbers from the fourth quarter of 2009 and compared them with the same quarter in 1994. Johnson's book cites numbers from the third quarter.Here's the information the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia sent us:Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 2009Bank of America Corp. - 2,224.5JP Morgan Chase - 2,032.0Citigroup - 1,856.6Wells Fargo - 1,243.6Goldman Sachs - 849.3Morgan Stanley - 771.5Total 8,977.5Nominal GDP 14.453.8Percentage 62.1%Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 1994Citicorp - 250.5BankAmerica Corp. - 215.5Chemical Banking Corp. - 171.4Nationsbank Corp. - 169.6JP Morgan - 154.9Chase Manhattan - 114.0Total 1,075.9Nominal GDP 7,248.2Percentage 14.8%A couple of experts we asked about these numbers noted that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were for years categorized as investment banks, and would not have been counted in the 1994 numbers. That changed in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, when the two firms becamebank holding companiesso they could borrow from the Federal Reserve. The underlying point, though -- that there has been significant consolidation in the banking industry -- remains true, they said.Brown said, Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True.

True

Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio is pushing a proposal to cap the sizes of large banks. He appeared on ABC News'This Weekwith Jake Tapper to talk about that, as well as Democratic efforts to pass financial reform.Let me give you one statistic, if I could, Jake, Brown said. Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP, 17 percent of GDP. The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP... We've got to deal with risk to be sure, but we've got to deal with the size of these banks, because if one of these banks is in serious trouble, it will have such a ripple effect on the whole economy. So we simply can't let them get this big and have this kind of economic power over Main Street, over a small business in Canton, Ohio, or a worker -- a manufacturing plant in Dayton. I mean, we just can't let this happen.Some very smart people disagree on Brown's point that big banks resist regulation by reason of their sheer mass.People likeSimon Johnson, the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, urge measures that would limit the size of the biggest banks. Meanwhile, people likePaul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winningNew York Timescolumnist, say that breaking up the banks isn't necessary to avert the next meltdown if the proper regulations are put in place.We were interested in Brown's statistic though: That 15 years ago the top six banks' assets totaled 17 percent of GDP, while today that's 63 percent.Brown's staff said he got the numbers from13 Bankers:The Wall Street Takeover and the Next Financial Meltdown, a book by Johnson and James Kwak, that describes the financial crisis and advocates steps for reform, including limits on the size of banks. Johnson also cited the number in an article in theNew Republic, co-written with Peter Boone, thatcriticizedPresident Barack Obama for not pushing rules that are tougher on big banks.The numbers are a fairly straightforward calculation. You take the bank's total assets, such as loans, cash and securities. (Remember that to banks, a loan is an asset, since they make money off loans.) Then you divide by GDP, which is gross domestic product, and is the total economic output for a country during a given year. Last year, the U.S. gross domestic product was $14.3 trillion.Johnson's book lists the six biggest banks of 2009 as Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley.The numbers in the book looked right to us, but we wanted to find an outside expert to confirm it. Researchers at the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia agreed to run the numbers to see if they got the same thing.Sure enough, they found the same thing. The figures were off by a few percentage points because the researchers were able to use numbers from the fourth quarter of 2009 and compared them with the same quarter in 1994. Johnson's book cites numbers from the third quarter.Here's the information the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia sent us:Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 2009Bank of America Corp. - 2,224.5JP Morgan Chase - 2,032.0Citigroup - 1,856.6Wells Fargo - 1,243.6Goldman Sachs - 849.3Morgan Stanley - 771.5Total 8,977.5Nominal GDP 14.453.8Percentage 62.1%Assets (in billions), Dec. 31, 1994Citicorp - 250.5BankAmerica Corp. - 215.5Chemical Banking Corp. - 171.4Nationsbank Corp. - 169.6JP Morgan - 154.9Chase Manhattan - 114.0Total 1,075.9Nominal GDP 7,248.2Percentage 14.8%A couple of experts we asked about these numbers noted that Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley were for years categorized as investment banks, and would not have been counted in the 1994 numbers. That changed in 2008 at the height of the financial crisis, when the two firms becamebank holding companiesso they could borrow from the Federal Reserve. The underlying point, though -- that there has been significant consolidation in the banking industry -- remains true, they said.Brown said, Fifteen years ago, the assets of the six largest banks in this country totaled 17 percent of GDP ... The assets of the six largest banks in the United States today total 63 percent of GDP. Independent sources and experts confirm that, so we rate his statement True.

FMD_train_1372

Fraudulent ALDI Coupons Circulating on Facebook

12/19/2015

In July 2019, an $80 coupon began circulating on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also targeted shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target. A different scam coupon offer also circulated with the ALDI logo in December 2015, advertising a "get 40% off all purchases in store" promise. Another displayed what appeared to be a free coupon for "$60 off a minimum $70 purchase," and even one for $75 off: "Aldi has a coupon for $60 off a minimum $70 purchase. Aldi has verified this is a scam, but people are sharing it all over Facebook." These coupons are not legitimate, as ALDI noted on their Facebook page. These coupon offers are a form of survey scams that direct victims to either a survey on a website not owned by ALDI or what looks like a Facebook page for ALDI. The survey pages and the Facebook page have no affiliation with the company, despite being adorned with the ALDI logo. Both instruct people to share the bogus ALDI coupon offer on their Facebook timelines and submit comments about it. This page instructs shoppers to follow these "two simple steps" in order to get their coupons. Once the steps are completed, however, users are not greeted with information explaining how to claim their coupons. Instead, they're asked to take a brief survey that entails providing personal information such as home address, telephone number, email address, and date of birth, and are required to sign up for credit cards or enroll in a number of subscription programs to obtain their "free" gift cards. A version of the scam also surfaced in May 2016, and another later in 2018. ALDI responded to frustrated consumers on Facebook. In June 2017, a version of the scam touting discounts in honor of ALDI's purported anniversary also appeared on Facebook: "HEY FRIENDS CHECK THIS OUT!!!!! Aldi is giving Free $75 Coupon to Everyone to celebrate 103rd Anniversary! Each Person (1)- Go & get yours! ALDI-COM.COM." However, attempting to visit the linked domain (ALDI-COM.com) led to a "deceptive site ahead" warning and not to ALDI's official website. If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll encounter one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts: "

False

In July 2019, an $80 coupon began making the rounds on Facebook for the ALDI grocery store chain. These shared posts were the latest iteration of the common "free coupon" or "free gift card" scams that frequently plague social media and have also preyed on shoppers of chains such as Kroger and Target:If you frequently use Facebook, there is a good chance that you'll run into one of these survey scams again. A July 2014 article from the Better Business Bureau lists key factors for identifying fraudulent Facebook posts:

FMD_train_56

The State of Texas is providing funding for women's health services at record-high levels, as they have recently raised it by an additional $50 million for the upcoming two years.

09/04/2015

At a Texas Capitol rally, an anti-abortion advocate suggested that Texas has reached a record pace in funding women's health. Video from the July 2015 rally shows Joe Pojman of the Texas Alliance for Life initially praising Republican leaders for launching investigations in response to stealth videos showing Planned Parenthood employees discussing donations of fetal tissue rather casually. The videos had been circulated by the California-based Center for Medical Progress, which describes itself as a group of citizen journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics. Next, Pojman told the crowd, to cheers and applause: "I just wanted to emphasize, the state of Texas is doing its part... The state of Texas is funding women's health services at historically high levels; they just increased that level by another $50 million for the next two years." Pojman noted that none of the $50 million would go to Planned Parenthood. "Texas takes care of our people, and Planned Parenthood is not part of that picture," he said. Pojman's declaration caught our attention in part because actions set in motion by the 2011 Legislature drove down family planning spending in the state budget by more than $70 million (from an existing two-year expenditure of $111 million) in 2012-13. Also in 2011, lawmakers voted to bar state family planning aid from going to health care providers affiliated with organizations that perform or promote abortions, such as Planned Parenthood, whose clinics had been the Texas program's biggest provider of contraceptive care and cancer screening, serving more than 40,000 women a year. Two years later, the state's ruling Republicans passed into law a ban on most abortions after 20 weeks of gestation and mandated that facilities providing abortions meet tougher health and safety standards, a move under court challenge that has caused providers to predict a substantial reduction in clinics statewide. After the 2011 actions, the federal government moved to cut off what had been a 9-to-1 match of federal to state dollars paying to provide contraceptive care for women who otherwise would qualify for Medicaid if they were to become pregnant. State health officials said the affected initiative, launched in 2005, had saved the state money—$21.4 million in 2008, for instance—by reducing Medicaid-financed births. Federal aid accounted for $65 million of the money spent on the program in 2010-11. Reacting to the pending cutoff, then-Gov. Rick Perry announced that state officials would ensure such services were delivered through clinics not affiliated with abortion providers. The promised transition fully played out starting in 2013. So, given all this, could it be that the state has set a record for expenditures on women's health? We asked Pojman, executive director of the alliance, which opposes the advocacy and practice of abortion (except to preserve the pregnant woman's life), how he reached his historically high conclusion. By email, Pojman responded with a chart, which he sourced to state budgets, indicating that nearly $285 million in state and federal funds budgeted by the 2015 Legislature for several women's health efforts in 2016-17 would exceed such spending in each of the nine previous two-year state budgets, dating to 1998-99, with the previous record being $240.1 million for such programs in 2014-15. The previous low, per the chart, was $128.8 million in 2012-13. Pojman's chart attributed the touted $50 million in fresh spending to a provision in the 2016-17 budget stating that the money should increase access to women's health and family planning services. In his email, Pojman told us that at the rally, he was referring to total legislatively appropriated state and federal funding, not per-person funding, on four programs providing family planning or female-specific health care such as breast and cervical cancer screenings. Conversely, he said he wasn't including funding for perinatal care, including childbirth. Planned Parenthood, he said, provides virtually no services for pregnant women, certainly not support for childbirth, except elective abortion. In his email, Pojman said a February 2014 Texas Health and Human Services Commission presentation amounted to a good summary of how the state spends money on women's health. From that, we pulled these thumbnails: The Texas Women's Health Program was put in place by the state starting in 2013 to provide services previously available through the defunct, federally supported Medicaid Women's Health Program. The successor program, serving women living at or below 185 percent of the federal poverty level, retains the same program objectives and client eligibility previously provided by WHP and has expanded program benefits to include treatment of certain sexually transmitted infections. Services offered in annual appointments include pelvic examinations and STD, diabetes, HIV, cholesterol, blood pressure, and breast and cervical cancer screenings, plus Pap tests, a clinical breast exam, contraceptives, and family planning counseling. Family planning services, available to women of childbearing age and men living at 250 percent of the poverty level or less, offer the tests provided in the women's health program plus sterilizations. Expanded Primary Health Care, a new program offered to women 18 and older living at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, covers the services offered in the other programs plus immunizations, mammograms, diagnostic services for women with abnormal breast or cervical cancer test results, cervical dysplasia treatment, individualized case management, and optional prenatal medical and dental services. Breast and Cervical Cancer Services, open to women living at or below 200 percent of the poverty level, provide breast screenings for women aged 50 to 64 and cervical screenings for women aged 21 to 64. In addition to services covered by the Expanded Primary Health Care program, BCCS assists clients needing to apply to Medicaid's Breast and Cervical Cancer program. In addition, a chart in the presentation included spending figures that mostly aligned with what Pojman had offered to us for fiscal 2010 through 2015—including the legislated decrease in 2012-13 and a rebound in spending budgeted for 2014-15 (which ran through August 2015): SOURCE: Presentation to Senate Committee on Health and Human Services: Texas Women's Health and Family Planning Programs, Feb. 20, 2014 (received by email from Joe Pojman, Aug. 6, 2015). Next, we asked the commission and outside experts about Pojman's rally statement. The consensus was that spending budgeted by lawmakers for 2016-17 would set a record, though some advocates cautioned this didn't mean all needs would be met, and others said that not all the described programs focus only on services typically provided by family planning clinics. To our inquiry, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission emailed a more detailed chart, basically lining up with Pojman's recap. From the commission's figures, it looked to us like the appropriated 2016-17 funds for women's health services exceeded previous two-year expenditures by $40 million or more. At the Austin-based Center for Public Policy Priorities, which advocates for programs serving low-income residents, analyst Stacey Pogue said Pojman was on solid ground, though it's complicated. For instance, Pogue said, the 2015 Legislature called for three women's health programs to be reorganized in 2016 into two offerings overseen by the commission, and precise spending results remain to be seen. By email, Pogue pointed out a two-page summary of the 2016-17 state budget prepared by the Texas Women's Healthcare Coalition, which promotes access to preventive health care for all Texas women, working toward the vision of a state where every woman has access to the preventive and preconception care that will help her stay healthy and prepare for healthy, planned pregnancies. According to this June 2015 summary, $260.9 million in spending on women's health care budgeted by lawmakers for 2016-17 reflected an increase of $46.5 million, or 22 percent, from what was budgeted for 2014-15. We confirmed the latest figures in the 2016-17 appropriations act approved by a Texas House-Senate conference committee; it shows $130,321,510 in budgeted spending on women's health services in the fiscal year beginning Sept. 1, 2015, and $130,548,682 for the subsequent year, totaling $260,870,192 in the biennium. As noted by Pojman, the act also states that each year, on approval of the budget board, the commission shall allocate $50 million to provide primary health care services to women, including but not limited to preventive health screenings such as breast and cervical cancer screenings, diabetes, cholesterol, hypertension, and STD-HIV screenings; family planning services including contraception; perinatal services; and dental services. Due to such spending, the act estimates that annually, 65,000 adults and adolescents would receive family planning services. It's that additional spending, the coalition summary indicates, that makes the budgeted spending higher despite legislated reductions in spending for family planning (a cut of $1.5 million, or nearly 4 percent) and the Texas Women's Health program (a cut of $2 million, or 3 percent). Also to our inquiry, Heather Busby of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, which focuses on guaranteeing Texans the right to make personal reproductive health decisions, including contraception and safe abortions, suggested we query Kari White, a University of Alabama at Birmingham professor and expert on women's health issues who has been part of a Texas-based team studying the effects of the Texas decision barring aid to clinics affiliated with abortion providers. By phone and email, White agreed that the state has allocated what looks like a record level of money to the efforts singled out by Pojman, though she speculated by email that the spending bump might be less dramatic than available figures suggest. The focus on funding allocated for the four programs on Pojman's list, White said, does not entirely capture how some of the women's health services have historically been paid for. For example, primary care services for women that are now covered by EPHC were previously paid for using other state-administered and federal programs (not included on Pojman's list). By not factoring these programs into funding totals in previous years, the recent increase may seem larger than it actually is. Also, White wrote, funding allocations do not reflect how effectively these programs are serving women. In other words, there may be more total dollars set aside for services, but since quite a bit of this new funding has been going to organizations that do not have a lot of experience with family planning, the state is spending more but not necessarily serving more women. White suggested we consider research by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that promotes reproductive health and abortion rights. In 2013, more than 1.7 million Texas women were in need of publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies, according to a July 2015 institute report that started from U.S. Census Bureau survey results. That year, the report said, publicly supported health centers provided contraceptive care to 281,170 women in Texas, plus 47,390 teens. These totals amount to substantial proportions—but not nearly all—of the women in need of publicly supported contraception, the report said. For our part, we asked the commission for help estimating the number of Texas women eligible for the health services. Could it be that even with spending up, less money is available per potential beneficiary? By email, spokesman Bryan Black provided a chart, drawing on U.S. Census Bureau surveys, estimating the number of female U.S. citizens aged 15-44 living in Texas at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level from 2010 through 2017—in other words, the women who most likely would qualify for the health services. Next, we calculated that some $109 per potential beneficiary was spent in 2010-11 and 2012-13; this was exceeded by the $205 per potential beneficiary appropriated by lawmakers for such programs in 2014-15 and the $236 per potential beneficiary appropriated for 2016-17. Pojman said the state of Texas is funding women's health services at historically high levels; they just increased their level by another $50 million for the next two years. Texas lawmakers this year voted to appropriate more for women's health services than before—including the $50 million bump. This includes funding for general health services such as diabetes and cholesterol screenings. It also may be meaningful that programs are under reorganization. Too, lawmakers started putting more money on the table after their actions led the federal government to cut off tens of millions of dollars for reproductive services. We rate this claim True. TRUE The statement is accurate, and there's nothing significant missing.

True

Videoof the July 2015 rally showsJoe Pojmanof the Texas Alliance for Life initially saluting Republican leaders for launching investigations in reaction to stealth videos showing Planned Parenthood employees talking rather casually about donations of fetal tissue. The videos had been circulated by the California-based Center for Medical Progress,which describes itselfas a group of citizen-journalists dedicated to monitoring and reporting on medical ethics.We asked Pojman, executive director of the alliance, whichsaysit opposes the advocacy and practice of abortion (except to preserve the pregnant womans life), how he reached his historically high conclusion.By email, Pojman responded with achart, which he sourced to state budgets, indicating that nearly $285 million in state and federal funds budgeted by the 2015 Legislature for several womens health efforts in 2016-17 would exceed such spending in each of the nine previous two-year state budgets, dating to 1998-99with the previous record being $240.1 million for such programs in 2014-15. The previous low, per the chart, was $128.8 million in 2012-13.In his email, Pojman said aFebruary 2014 Texas Health and Human Services Commission presentationamounted to a good summary of how the state spends money on womens health. From that, we pulled these thumbnails:SOURCE:Presentation to Senate Committee on Health and Human Services: Texas Womens Health and Family Planning Programs,Feb. 20, 2014 (received by email from Joe Pojman, Aug. 6, 2015)To our inquiry, the Texas Health and Human Services Commission emailed amore detailed chartbasically lining up with Pojmans recap. From the commissions figures, it looked to us like the appropriated 2016-17 funds for womens health services exceeded previous two-year expenditures by $40 million or more.By email, Pogue pointed out a two-pagesummary of the 2016-17 state budgetprepared by theTexas Womens Healthcare Coalition, which says it promotes access to preventive health care for all Texas women working toward the vision of a state where every woman has access to the preventive and preconception care that will help her stay healthy and prepare for healthy, planned pregnancies. According to this June 2015 summary, $260.9 million in spending on womens health care budgeted by lawmakers for 2016-17 reflected an increase of $46.5 million, or 22 percent, from what was budgeted for 2014-15.We confirmed the latest figures inthe 2016-17 appropriations act approved by a Texas House-Senate conference committee; it shows $130,321,510 in budgeted spending on womens health services in the fiscal year beginning Sept. 1, 2015, and $130,548,682 for the subsequent year, totaling $260,870,192 in the biennium.Also to our inquiry, Heather Busby of NARAL Pro-Choice Texas, whichsaysit focuses on guaranteeing Texans the right to make personal reproductive health decisions including contraception and safe abortions, suggested we queryKari White, a University of Alabama at Birmingham professor and expert on womens health issues whos been part of aTexas-based teamstudying effects of the Texas decision barring aid to clinics affiliated with abortion providers.White suggested we consider research by the Guttmacher Institute, a nonprofit that promotes reproductive health and abortion rights. In 2013, more than 1.7 million Texas women were in need of publicly supported contraceptive services and supplies, according to a July 2015 institute reportthat started fromU.S. Census Bureau survey results. That year, the report said, publicly supported health centers provided contraceptive care to 281,170 women in Texas plus 47,390 teens. These totals amount to substantial proportionsbut not nearly allof the women in need of publicly supported contraception, the report said.By email, spokesman Bryan Black provided achart, drawing on U.S. Census Bureau surveys, estimating the number of female U.S. citizens aged 15-44 living in Texas at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level from 2010 through 2017--in other words, the women who most likely would qualify for the health services. Next, we calculated that some $109 per potential beneficiary was spent in 2010-11 and 2012-13; this was exceeded by the $205 per potential beneficiary appropriated by lawmakers for such programs in 2014-15 and the $236 per potential beneficiary appropriated for 2016-17.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_1949

Did a State Democratic Party Logo Once Feature the Slogan 'White Supremacy'?

09/25/2017

Amid the political controversy engendered by the protests of National Football League athletes who refused to stand during pre-game renditions of the national anthem in late September 2017 to display solidarity with Black victims of police violence—a gesture supported by many Democrats but condemned by President Trump and conservative Republicans—a meme was circulated via social media making the point that the Democratic Party was not always a standard bearer for racial equality. This is an example from Twitter: the centerpiece of the post is a reproduction of an illustration typically captioned "Democratic Party Logo until 1966," featuring a drawing of a crowing rooster and the slogan "White Supremacy, For the Right." Although the description is somewhat misleading ("White Supremacy" was never a slogan of the national Democratic Party, for example, nor have we seen evidence that the image was "purged from the Internet"), this was, in fact, the emblem of the Alabama Democratic Party between 1904 and 1966. First, regarding the rooster, it's often mistakenly assumed that the donkey was always the symbol of the Democratic Party, when in fact the party began using a crowing rooster as its mascot around 1840. This version of how that came to pass is from a biographical sketch of Indianapolis lawyer and Whig politician Thomas D. Walpole published in 1876: "In 1840 [Tom Walpole] was an ardent and enthusiastic Whig, and rendered great service to the Whig party, and contributed largely to the success of General Harrison. It was during this canvass that Tom gave to the Democratic party their emblem, which they have claimed ever since, the chicken cock, or rooster." George Patterson, then editing the Democratic paper, wrote just before the August election of that year to Joseph Chapman of Greenfield that the Democratic party would be beaten, and that there was no hope; but, said he, "Crow, Chapman, crow." By some means, Tom got possession of the letter and exposed it. A year or two subsequent to this circumstance, Messrs. George and Page Chapman became proprietors and editors of the Democratic paper and placed a rooster at the head of their paper. From this circumstance, it was generally supposed that they were the persons to whom the letter was addressed and the original crowers; but such is not the case. It is to Tom Walpole that the Democratic party is indebted for the emblem of the rooster. Other sources grant full credit to Joseph Chapman for dreaming up the rooster symbol, but in any case, although it was never officially adopted as the emblem of the national Democratic Party, it very quickly became an unofficial one and remained so until cartoonist Thomas Nast's depictions of Republicans as elephants and Democrats as donkeys captured the public imagination in the late nineteenth century (to date, the national Democratic Party has never officially adopted any animal as its symbol). The forerunner of today's Democratic Party was born during the 1820s and '30s, coalescing around the populist presidential candidacy of national war hero and southern slaveholder Andrew Jackson. Although egalitarianism and freedom of the individual were much-touted ideals of "Jacksonian Democracy," in reality, the Democratic Party of the time took white supremacy for granted and had little to no interest in defending the freedom and equality of African Americans, Native Americans, or any other racial minorities. Still, the party was conflicted over the expansion of slavery and split in two during the 1860 elections, with the Northern Democrats opposing expansion and Southern Democrats favoring it. The Democratic Party remained dominant in the South after the Civil War, opposing Reconstruction and enacting laws to suppress Black voters and enforce racial segregation. The Alabama Democratic Party went further than most, calling for the adoption of a new state constitution in 1901 that explicitly disenfranchised Black voters and celebrating its success in that effort by officially embracing the slogan "White Supremacy" three years later. The Monroe Journal of Claiborne, Alabama reported on June 2, 1904: "The state executive committee adopted the game cock as the Democratic Party emblem. Above the bird will be the words 'White Supremacy' and below 'For the Right.'" To be sure, there were a few Alabama Democrats who objected to the emblem after its adoption, though not for the reasons you might suppose. For example, Democratic Congressman J. Thomas Heflin was perfectly fine with the racist slogan but felt the image of the rooster was undignified: "I think that the emblem is not what it should be, and that it fails to impress the people with the dignity of the Democratic Party. To my mind, it would have been much better to have had, instead of the rooster, the picture of a handsome young woman holding the Constitution in a scroll aloft, with the words 'Here We Rest' prominently shown upon it. I see no objection to the use of the two expressions already adopted, but do not think that the design is worthy of a great party like ours." Dignified or not, that emblem would appear at the top of every Alabama state ballot for many decades to come, as noted, for example, in this November 1940 report by the Chicago Tribune: "In Alabama, the disfranchisement of the Negro is proclaimed proudly by the Democratic party on the official ballot in all elections. At the head of the Democratic column on the ballot appears the emblem of the rooster. Arched over the rooster's head are the words: 'White Supremacy.' Below the rooster appear the words: 'For the Right.'" By the early 1950s, however, the Alabama Democratic Party's proud embrace of white supremacy was becoming a liability for the national party. In 1952, New York Gov. Thomas Dewey, a Republican campaigning on behalf of Dwight D. Eisenhower, gave a speech laying the racist logo at the doorstep of Eisenhower's Democratic rival Adlai Stevenson (from the Dixon Evening Telegraph, October 9, 1952): "Gov. Thomas E. Dewey says the 'White Supremacy' slogan on Alabama's Democratic ballot convicts that party's top nominees of 'rankest hypocrisy.' In a state-wide radio and television address Wednesday night, the New York governor ripped into Gov. Adlai E. Stevenson and Sen. John J. Sparkman of Alabama after holding up to TV viewers the official Alabama ballot showing: A rooster emblem, with the words 'White Supremacy' above it and the words 'For the Right' below it. 'There it is,' Dewey said, 'the rooster and the banner of White supremacy, Ku Klux Klan, Jim Crow banner flying over the election for Stevenson and Sparkman in this year 1952.'" Though the Democrats lost that election, the emblem would remain intact on the ballot for another 14 years, until leaders of the Alabama Democratic Party finally modified the slogan in 1966 for purely pragmatic reasons: the party needed "Negro" voters. The Montgomery Advertiser reported: "In an unexpected display of strength, the Loyalist faction of the State Democratic Executive Committee removed the 'white supremacy' label from the party emblem Saturday in a move admittedly designed to keep Negro voters in the fold... The only change made in the emblem was removing the words 'white supremacy' and substituting 'Democrats.' The rooster was untouched." Charles W. McKay of Talladega offered the resolution changing the emblem. McKay gained fame a number of years ago when he authored the "Nullification Resolution" in the Legislature, which sought to declare null and void the Supreme Court's school desegregation decision. McKay made it clear that the emblem change was necessary if the Democrats were to attract Negro votes this year. "We can't afford to spend a lot of money nominating candidates this spring and then take a stick and run off 150,000 to 175,000 voters who might vote Democratic," he declared. Ironically (though the irony may well have been lost on McKay), it was only because the voter suppression measures instituted decades earlier by his own state party had been knocked down by the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that many of those potential new Black voters would even have access to the polls. As to the Alabama Democratic Party rooster, it, too, was finally sent into forced retirement, but not until 1996 (30 years later), when it was replaced with the image of a donkey.

True

Amid political controversy engendered by the protests of National Football League athletes who refused to stand during pre-game renditions of the national anthem in late September 2017 to display solidarity with black victims of police violence a gesture supported by many Democrats but condemned by President Trump and conservative Republicans a meme was circulated via social media making the point that the Democratic Party was not always a standard bearer for racial equality.The centerpiece of the post is a reproduction of an illustration typically captioned "Democratic Party Logo until 1966," featuring a drawing of a crowing rooster and the slogan "White Supremacy, For the Right." And although the description is somewhat misleading ("White Supremacy" was never a slogan of the national Democratic Party, for example, nor have we seen evidence that the image was "purged from the Internet"), this was, in fact, the emblem of the Alabama Democratic Party between 1904 and 1966.First, regarding the rooster, it's often mistakenly assumed that the donkey was always the symbol of the Democratic Party, when in fact the party began using a crowing rooster as its mascot around 1840. This version of how that came to pass is from a biographical sketch of Indianapolis lawyer and Whig politician Thomas D. Walpole published in 1876:The Alabama Democratic Party went further than most, calling for the adoption of a new state constitution in 1901 that explicitly disenfranchised black voters, and celebrating its success in that effort by officially embracing the slogan "White Supremacy" three years later. TheMonroe Journal of Claiborne, Alabama reported on 2 June 1904:

FMD_train_29

Visa Fraud Investigation Scam

12/23/2003

Scam: Callers pretend to be fraud investigation agents for Visa and MasterCard in order to obtain credit card security codes. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2003] We all receive emails regarding one scam or another, but last week I REALLY DID get scammed! Both VISA and MasterCard informed me that this scam is currently being perpetrated throughout the Midwest, with some variation in the product or amount. If you receive a call, just hang up. My husband was called on Wednesday from "VISA," and I was called on Thursday from "MasterCard." It worked like this: The person calling says, "This is Carl Patterson (any name), and I'm calling from the Security and Fraud department at VISA. My badge number is 12460. Your card has been flagged for an unusual purchase pattern, and I'm calling to verify. This would be on your VISA card issued by 5/3 Bank. Did you purchase an Anti-Telemarketing Device for $497.99 from a marketing company based in Arizona?" When you say "No," the caller continues, "Then we will be issuing a credit to your account. This is a company we have been watching, and the charges range from $297 to $497, just under the $500 purchase pattern that flags most cards. Before your next statement, the credit will be sent to (gives you your address), is that correct?" You say, "Yes." The caller continues, "I will be starting a fraud investigation. If you have any questions, you should call the 800 number listed on your card, 1-800-VISA, and ask for Security. You will need to refer to this Control #." Then they give you a six-digit number. "Do you need me to read it again?" The caller then says he "needs to verify you are in possession of your card. Turn the card over. There are seven numbers; the first four are 1234 (whatever), and the next three are the security numbers that verify you are in possession of the card. These are the numbers you use to make internet purchases to prove you have the card. Read me the three numbers." Then he says, "That is correct. I just needed to verify that the card has not been lost or stolen and that you still have your card. Do you have any other questions? Don't hesitate to call back if you do." You actually say very little, and they never ask for or tell you the card number. However, after we were called on Wednesday, we called back within 20 minutes to ask a question. Are we glad we did! The REAL VISA security department told us it was a scam, and in the last 15 minutes, a new purchase of $497.99 WAS put on our card. To make a long story short, we filed a real fraud report, closed the VISA card, and they are reissuing it with a new number. What the scam wants is the three-digit number, and once the charge goes through, they keep charging every few days. By the time you get your statement, you think the credit is coming, and then it's harder to actually file a fraud report. The real VISA reinforced that they will never ask for anything on the card (they already know). What makes this more remarkable is that on Thursday, I received a call from "Jason Richardson of MasterCard," with a word-for-word repeat of the VISA scam. This time, I didn't let him finish; I hung up. We filed a police report (as instructed by VISA), and they said they are taking several of these reports daily and to inform friends, relatives, and coworkers. Origins: There are five points we generally try to apply in evaluating warnings about possible criminal schemes or activities: 1) Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning technically possible as described? 2) Is the phenomenon outlined in the warning plausible? (That is, some criminal schemes are technically possible, but they're too difficult, cumbersome, or expensive to plausibly enact on anything more than a very limited basis.) 3) Are there any verifiable instances of people having been victimized in the manner described by the warning? 4) Is there evidence that the criminal activity described in the warning is widespread? 5) Is the criminal activity described in the warning something the average person might fall victim to? The scheme outlined in the message quoted above might be categorized as a "social engineering" scam—a technique that preys upon people's unquestioning acceptance of authority and willingness to cooperate in order to extract sensitive information (such as computer passwords or credit card numbers). In this case, the scammers' target data are the three-digit security codes found on the back of MasterCard and Visa cards. Just as the Internet and other technologies have greatly expanded the possibilities for making credit card purchases without the need to physically present a card to the seller, they have also created additional opportunities for identity thieves to profit from stolen credit card numbers. After obtaining credit card numbers (often through simple means such as rummaging through trash to find discarded receipts or statements), criminals can employ various methods (e.g., mail order, phone order, Internet purchases, posing as merchants) to obtain money and merchandise by charging against the cardholder's account—even though the credit card itself remains securely inside the cardholder's wallet. The victim may not even realize anything is amiss until they receive their next statement in the mail several weeks later. Although safeguards have been enacted to catch most of these types of fraud, they are often defeated by a combination of lax security and clever criminals who know how to circumvent them. One of those safeguards is the addition of three-digit security codes (known as CVC2 or CVV2 codes) to every MasterCard and Visa card, codes that are indent-printed in the signature panels on the backs of the cards but are not encoded in the magnetic stripes and do not print on sales receipts. Many vendors cannot process credit card transactions without obtaining these security codes from their customers, thereby ensuring that persons placing orders have physical possession of the cards being used (and haven't simply scammed the sixteen-digit account numbers imprinted on the front of the cards). Thus, the scheme described above might be used by identity thieves who have managed to collect credit card numbers but need to obtain the associated security codes to process charges against the accounts. So, back to our five points: 1) Is this possible? Yes, it's possible that scammers might obtain credit card numbers and then use the technique described above to acquire security codes and process fraudulent transactions against the accounts. 2) Is this plausible? The scam as described above is not extraordinarily difficult or expensive to execute; all it requires is access to a telephone and the establishment of a merchant account for processing credit card transactions. It also assumes the scammer already has the names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers (plus expiration dates) of their victims, but that information might be obtained in various ways (such as breaking into and stealing customer data from merchant websites). Whether the same scammer could process more than a handful of fraudulent charges before complaints cause their merchant account to be shut down is questionable, though, and most credit card issuers now have checks in place to prevent the shipping of merchandise to any address other than the card's registered billing address and other "card not present" (CNP) scams. 3) Are there known instances of this occurring? We spoke with a representative of MasterCard, who told us that although she couldn't verify the specific details of the message reproduced above, this type of scam does occur and isn't new; it's been happening ever since MasterCard started putting CVC2 security codes on all its cards back in 1997. (Visa did not add CVV2 codes to all their credit cards until 2001.) She also reiterated that MasterCard would not ask a cardholder to disclose security codes or provide any information verifying physical possession of a card; any such inquiries regarding security matters would come from the financial institution that issued the credit card, not from MasterCard itself. 4) Is this a widespread phenomenon? Unfortunately, neither MasterCard nor VISA would provide us with any statistics regarding the specific scam described here or confirm any actual instances of its occurrence (other than to note that using the telephone to trick cardholders into divulging their security codes is a type of fraud that has been occurring for several years and is ongoing). However, numerous readers have informed us that they've received calls from individuals identifying themselves as fraud investigation agents and asking for sensitive personal data, so (even allowing for the possibility that some of those calls were legitimate) we would have to say anecdotal evidence indicates this scam is still being perpetrated, if only infrequently. 5) Is this something that might affect the average person? Yes, anyone who holds a credit card is a potential victim of this type of fraud. The best protection against these types of telephone schemes for obtaining sensitive credit card information is to always verify the identities of the people with whom you speak. If you have security questions or concerns about your credit card, call the financial institution that issued your card directly. If someone contacts you by phone about your credit card, ask the caller to provide their name, department, and extension, then hang up and call them back through the phone number listed on your credit card or billing statement. Additional information: Recognizing Credit Card Fraud (Consumer @ction) Last updated: 1 April 2015

False

2) Is this plausible? The scam as described above is not extraordinarily difficult or expensive to pull off; all it requires is access to a telephone and the establishment of a merchant account for processing credit card transactions. It also assumes the scammer already has the names, addresses, phone numbers, and credit card numbers (plus expiration dates) of his victims, but that information might be obtained in a variety of ways (such as breaking into and stealing customer data from merchant web sites). Whether the same scammer could process more than a handful of phony charges before complaints caused his merchant account to be shut down is problematic, though, and most credit card issuers now have checks in place to prevent the shipping of merchandise to anywhere other than the card's registered billing address and other "card not present" (CNP scams). Recognizing Credit Card Fraud (Consumer @ction)

FMD_train_1374

Facebook Scam Pushes Fake Giveaway for Ninja Foodi Cooker

09/21/2022

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

False

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

FMD_train_1520

Who Was Michael Myers?

10/26/2015

One of the most iconic masks in movie history is the one worn by the crazed killer Michael Myers in the Halloween franchise of slasher films, the first installment of which was released in 1978. According to rumor, this frightful face originated with a character from a very different series and medium: Captain Kirk from television's Star Trek. The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have the funds to create a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a Captain Kirk mask at a magic shop and made a few alterations to create the iconic look of Michael Myers. He explained, "There was a choice we had to make because we didn't have any money to make a mask. So the art director went up to Bert Wheeler's magic shop on Hollywood Boulevard, which was right up the street from our offices, and he got two masks. One was a clown mask, and one was a Captain Kirk mask. It was supposed to be Captain Kirk. It looked nothing like William Shatner, nothing like anybody, really. It was just a strange mask, which was perfect for us. So we spray-painted it, altered the eye holes, and just did a couple of things with the hair, and there you had it. I like to think it's Shatner, but it's not really." Similar versions of the story have been told by other members of the crew, including Rick Sternbach, who worked as an illustrator/designer on Halloween 2, and William Shatner (who portrayed Captain Kirk) himself. Sternbach's account is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact. He stated, "I was hired as an illustrator on Halloween 2 in 1981, working for production designer J. Michael Riva. In a supply cabinet at Pumpkin Pie Productions, we had one mask left from the original Halloween and no idea where to get any others for the sequel. It appeared that we'd need to check out some of the toy stores and such, but I noticed that there was some wording molded into the neck area. There was a model number and the words 'Don Post Studios.' I made a call, read off the model number, and the word came back, 'It's our Captain Kirk mask.' I asked if we could buy a number of them, and was told, 'We'll give you a box, just give us credit.' With that, I turned the official dealings over to the higher-ups."

True

The 1978 horror film Halloween was produced on a very limited budget, and director John Carpenter didn't have funds for creating a custom mask. Carpenter told the Hollywood Reporter in a 2015 interview that the movie's art director instead picked up a mask of Captain Kirk at a magic shop and applied a few alterations to it to create the iconic look of Michael Myers:Sternbach's story is of particular interest because he was one of the first to transition this movie legend into a movie fact:

FMD_train_662

Did Trudeau Tell Canadians to Stop Talking to Unvaccinated Relatives?

02/02/2022

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 February 2022, an image went viral that supposedly showed a social media message from Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, in which he encouraged Canadians who had been vaccinated against COVID-19 to stop talking to their unvaccinated relatives. This was not a genuine message from Trudeau: This message was posted in the days following a protest against COVID-19 vaccination requirements in Canada. Trudeau has commented on this protest, but he did not post the above-displayed message. The doctored message reads: "Please help do your part to make this stop. If you have family or friends that still haven't been vaccinated, do not allow these to family dinners, do not speak to them on the phone, do not reply to their texts. You need to do everything you can to make life difficult for them until they comply." This message does not appear on Trudeau's Twitter or Facebook pages. We also searched archived versions of these pages and found no trace of this message. Additionally, we have yet to see anyone share a link to the original message. This post, it appears, exists purely in screenshot form. Trudeau's Twitter Facebook pages A representative for the Office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Reuters: "This is not our post." Reuters Here is a genuine message from Trudeau in response to the protest: This is not the first bit of misinformation to circulate in the wake of the "freedom convoy" protest in Canada. We previously addressed rumors about the convoy's size, a number of miscaptioned videos that supposedly showed global support for the convoy, and an edited clip that purported to show "The Simpsons" had predicted the protest. addressed rumors about the convoy's size supposedly showed global support for the convoy purported to show "The Simpsons" had predicted the protest Facebook Post Falsely Attributed to Canadian Prime Minister. AP NEWS, 2 Feb. 2022, https://apnews.com/article/fact-checking-955941374482. Fact Check-Canadian Prime Minister Did Not Publish Message Encouraging the Social Rejection of Unvaccinated People. Reuters, 1 Feb. 2022. www.reuters.com, https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-canada-prime-minister-message-idUSL1N2UC1ZZ. Freedom Convoy: Trudeau Calls Trucker Protest an Insult to Truth. BBC News, 31 Jan. 2022. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-60202050. Staff, Shannon Larson Globe, et al. Whats Going on across the Border? The Canadian Trucker Protests, Explained. - The Boston Globe. BostonGlobe.Com, https://www.bostonglobe.com/2022/02/02/world/whats-going-across-border-canadian-trucker-protests-explained/. Accessed 2 Feb. 2022.

False

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. This message does not appear on Trudeau's Twitter or Facebook pages. We also searched archived versions of these pages and found no trace of this message. Additionally, we have yet to see anyone share a link to the original message. This post, it appears, exists purely in screenshot form. A representative for the Office of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Reuters: "This is not our post."This is not the first bit of misinformation to circulate in the wake of the "freedom convoy" protest in Canada. We previously addressed rumors about the convoy's size, a number of miscaptioned videos that supposedly showed global support for the convoy, and an edited clip that purported to show "The Simpsons" had predicted the protest.

FMD_train_615

Does Facebook 'Write Off' Your Birthday Donations?

11/06/2019

In November 2019, some people encountered a meme on Facebook that claimed the social media company was using the contributions its users made to birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off for the company. While this meme contains four separate assertions, we will focus mainly on the second one for this article: that "Facebook is allowed to declare your donation for a tax write-off." Facebook launched its birthday-donation program in 2017, a feature that allows users to "donate their birthdays" to raise money for various charities. A few weeks before a Facebook user's birthday, the user receives a message asking about a possible fundraiser centered on that day. If the user decides to raise funds, they may choose from 750,000 non-profits, set a fundraising goal, and then share the fundraiser with Facebook friends. Here's how Facebook explained the feature in its announcement: "Two weeks before your birthday, you'll see a message from Facebook in your News Feed giving you the option to create a fundraiser for your birthday. You can create a fundraiser for any of the 750,000 US nonprofits available for fundraising on Facebook. Your friends will receive a notification inviting them to support your cause in honor of your special day." When birthday fundraisers were initially rolled out, Facebook retained 5% of the donations to cover processing fees and fraud protection. The company eliminated those fees at the end of 2017, so as of now, 100% of such donations go to the designated charities. In August 2018, Facebook announced that it had helped facilitate $300 million in charitable donations. The claim that Facebook was able to use the $300 million raised by its users via birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off is not substantiated by any evidence. In fact, it seems that Facebook users, and not the company itself, are actually the ones who get to write off these donations, as Facebook states: "A donation to a nonprofit through its Facebook Page or a fundraiser on Facebook may be tax-deductible. Since tax laws vary by country and region, you should consult a tax professional or review the laws for your area to determine whether a donation is tax-deductible." After you make a donation, a confirmation will be sent to the primary email listed on your Facebook account. This confirmation shows that you've made this donation as a charitable contribution and that you're not receiving any goods or services in return. We reached out to Facebook for comment on this meme, and a spokesperson told us that these claims were "completely false": "These claims about Facebook Fundraising tools are completely false. We are a donation platform, and payments to charities are processed by our licensed, regulated subsidiaries. 100% of what’s raised using donate buttons and fundraisers created on Facebook goes to the benefiting nonprofit. Nonprofits either receive funds directly from Facebook or via Network for Good, a Donor Advised Fund we partner with." While Facebook does not write off donations made by users, the company's birthday fundraisers have nonetheless spurred some criticism. In October 2018, some users reported that their one-time donations turned into recurring donations. (In fact, some billing irregularities occurred, but no users were actually charged more than they agreed to donate.) Tech Crunch also noted that this program has raised concerns about privacy, and one fundraising consultant was leery of the program for further distancing donors from charitable organizations: "As with almost every other Facebook feature, its fundraising tools have prompted concerns about privacy, particularly donor privacy, which is considered sacrosanct by many organizations (Facebook lets users decide if they want to share their donation with friends). Some charities also have qualms about benefiting from Facebook fundraisers until the company does a better job of policing hate speech, especially if the purpose of their work is aiding marginalized or persecuted minority groups." In an insightful blog post from last November, fundraising consultant Jeremy Hatch argued that fundraising on Facebook also eliminates the relationship between donors and organizations, where there are established norms and ethical practices. He added that non-profits should reconsider before they grow increasingly reliant on a company whose ultimate goal is to gather and monetize user data. We've yet to come across any credible reporting, however, documenting that Facebook was using individual donations from users as a tax write-off.

False

Here's how Facebook explained the feature in its announcement:When birthday fundraisers were initially rolled out, Facebook was retaining 5% of the donations to cover processing fees and fraud protection. The company did away with those fees at the end of 2017, so as of now 100% of such donations go to the designated charities. In August 2018, Facebook announced that it has helped facilitate $300 million in charitable donations. (The above-displayed meme claims in item 3 that Facebook can "brag" about its charitable donations, but we should note the company's announcement says "People Raise $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year," not "Facebook Raises $300M Through Birthday Fundraisers in First Year.")The claim that Facebook was able to use the $300 million raised by its users via birthday fundraisers as a tax-deductible write-off is not substantiated by any evidence. In fact, it seems that Facebook users and not the company itself are actually the ones who get to write off these donations, as Facebook states:While Facebook does not write off donations made by users, the company's birthday fundraisers have nonetheless spurred some criticism. In October 2018, some users reported that their one-time donations turned into recurring donations. (In fact, some billing irregularities occurred, but no users were actually charged more than they agreed to donate.) Tech Crunch also noted that this program has raised concerns about privacy, and one fundraising consultant was leery of the program for further distancing donors from charitable organizations:As with almost every other Facebook feature, its fundraising tools have prompted concerns about privacy, particularly donor privacy, which is considered sacrosanct by many organizations (Facebook lets users decide if they want to share their donation with friends). Some charities also have qualms about benefiting from Facebook fundraisers until the company does a better job of policing hate speech, especially if the purpose of their work is aiding marginalized or persecuted minority groups.In an insightful blog post from last November, fundraising consultant Jeremy Hatch argued that fundraising on Facebook also eliminates the relationship between donors and organizations, where there are established norms and ethical practices. He added that non-profits should reconsider before they grow increasingly reliant on a company whose ultimate goal is to gather and monetize user data.

FMD_train_366

Congress removes Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction, and EITC from the Tax Code.

11/13/2014

Claim: Congress has eliminated the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit (EITC), and mortgage deductions from the tax code under pressure from lobby groups and the Koch brothers. Example: [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Are u kidding!? Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction & E.I.T.C Origins: On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans. article According to the article, the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction were all forms of "entitlement payouts" that had been eliminated beginning with the 2014 fiscal year to allow "job creators" to flourish: The deeply unpopular congress, whose approval rating hovers around a historic low of 10%, has voted to remove the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code starting with the 2014 fiscal year. The move is almost assured to solidify the perception of the 113rd Congress of the United States as deeply disconnected from the struggles and desires of the populace it is supposed to serve. The move, long championed by entitlement reform advocates like congressman Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin and Ted Cruz R-Texas, will cut entitlement payouts by a staggering 177 billion dollars. 54.33 billion dollars in savings will be realized from discontinuing the earned income tax credit, which generally pays those making less than 12 thousand dollars yearly large cash tax rebates far in excess of the actual tax they paid. 69.7 billion will be saved from the mortgage interest tax deduction, which critics say primarily favors top income earners. The elimination of the child tax credit, which critics say serves no fair purpose, will result in an additional 54 billion dollar savings. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The article also quoted economist "Paul Horner" on Congress' purported tax credit repeal. If that name sounds familiar, it's because Paul Horner is a National Report writer whose name is used as a recurring character in various stories published by the site. Last updated: 13 November 2014 <

NEI

Origins: On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6."

FMD_train_1262

Does Biden hail from the same Scranton that served as the setting for 'The Office'?

10/23/2020

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

True

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

FMD_train_725

Hillary Clinton reduced her tax bill by giving $1 million to herself through the Clinton Foundation.

10/01/2016

An Internet meme circulating during the final weeks of the 2016 presidential campaign purported to reveal financial trickery on the part of Democratic contender Hillary Clinton, who allegedly deducted $1 million from her 2015 income tax return after donating it "to herself" via contributions to the Clinton Foundation. Assuming that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were as follows: 1. The return was a joint filing for both Hillary and William J. Clinton. 2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation. 3. Declaring an amount, say $1 million, as a charitable donation only reduces your taxable income; it doesn't mean your "tax bill" is reduced by that amount. 4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices. 5. According to Inside Philanthropy, the Clinton Family Foundation regularly disburses contributions to numerous different charities (one of which is, in fact, the Clinton Foundation). Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they made around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held approximately $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving. However, in 2013, the Clintons gave $1.8 million through their personal foundation, with only around a fifth of that money going to the Clinton Foundation, roughly the same share as in 2012. So where have all the other gifts gone? The short answer is to many different places. In 2014, the Clintons donated money to 70 nonprofits through their foundation. The picture looked similar the year before, with many grants falling in the range of $5,000 to $25,000. Recipients of the Clintons' generosity via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Children's Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity. The foundation's 2015 tax filing has not yet been made public, so we don't have an accounting of the organizations to which the $1 million contributed by the Clintons that year was disbursed. Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency.

False

On the assumption that this information came from the candidate's 2015 tax filing (released to the public earlier this year), that's where we went to verify the accuracy of the claims. Our findings were these:2. Their shared charitable donations totaled $1,042,000: $42,000 to Desert Classic Charities and $1 million to the Clinton Family Foundation.4. The Clinton Family Foundation is a separate entity from the Clinton Foundation. Inside Philanthropy describes the Clinton Family Foundation as "a traditional private foundation that serves as the vehicle for the couple's personal charitable giving." It has neither staff nor offices. Digging into the Clinton Family Foundation's 2014 tax return reveals that they did around $3.8 million in grantmaking and held some $5.3 million in assets. Of total grantmaking in 2014, $1.8 million went to the Clinton Foundation, just under half of total giving. Recipients of the Clintons' largesse via the Clinton Family Foundation in 2014 ranged from the School of American Ballet to the Arkansas Childrens Hospital Foundation to Wellesley College to the Elie Wiesel Foundation for Humanity.Regarding the apparent assumption that any monies donated to the Clinton Foundation simply end up in the Clintons' own pockets, we refer readers, once again, to Inside Philanthropy, which describes the actual work the foundation does, and to the charity rating service Charity Navigator, which gives the Clinton Foundation an overall score of 94.74 points out of 100 in terms of its financials, accountability, and transparency.

FMD_train_734

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

07/17/2012

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

True

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

FMD_train_1491

Were all Democrats in opposition to a 2.8 percent rise in Social Security COLA?

10/18/2018

In mid-October 2018, Facebook users shared an inaccurate meme asking, "Were any of you aware that ALL the Democrats voted AGAINST the 2.8% Social Security cost of living increase?" No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases: Most people are aware that there are annual increases in Social Security benefits to offset the corrosive effects of inflation on fixed incomes. These increases, now known as Cost of Living Allowances (COLAs), are such an accepted feature of the program that it is difficult to imagine a time when there were no COLAs. But in fact, when Ida May Fuller received her first $22.54 benefit payment in January of 1940, this would be the same amount she would receive each month for the next 10 years. For Ida May Fuller and the millions of other Social Security beneficiaries like her, the amount of that first benefit check was the amount they could expect to receive for life. It was not until the 1950 Amendments that Congress first legislated an increase in benefits. Current beneficiaries had their payments recomputed, and Ida May Fuller, for example, saw her monthly check increase from $22.54 to $41.30. These recomputations were effective for September 1950 and appeared for the first time in the October 1950 checks. A second increase was legislated for September 1952. Together, these two increases almost doubled the value of Social Security benefits for existing beneficiaries. From that point on, benefits were increased only when Congress enacted special legislation for that purpose. In 1972, the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase, and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits. The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost.

False

No Democrats, or any other legislators for that matter, voted for or against the 2.8 percent cost of living allowance (COLA) increase that Social Security recipients will see beginning in 2019. Since 1975, COLA increases have kicked in automatically and are based on changes in the consumer price index, a figure calculated by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.Here's how the Social Security Administration has summarized the history of COLA increases:In 1972 legislation the law was changed to provide, beginning in 1975, for automatic annual cost-of-living allowances (i.e., COLAs) based on the annual increase in consumer prices. No longer do beneficiaries have to await a special act of Congress to receive a benefit increase and no longer does inflation drain value from Social Security benefits.The latest increase will affect 62 million Social Security and Supplemental Security Income (SSI) recipients starting in January 2019. It's the largest increase since 2012, when beneficiaries saw a 3.6 percent boost.

FMD_train_1496

Did Dolly Parton Say: 'Trump In One Year Is Already Better Than 16 Years of Bush, Obama Put Together'?

01/26/2018

One of the several forms of political clickbait that has emerged in the online world in recent years is the false attribution of controversial and inflammatory political statements to various celebrities, a tactic that has already appropriated the names of notables such as Sandra Bullock, Bruce Willis, and Demi Moore. Another expression of this misleading technique for generating clicks involves attributing the sentiment that "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush and Obama put together" to celebrities ranging from actress Michelle Pfeiffer to singer Dolly Parton. Neither of these women (nor any other prominent entertainer) expressed this thought; it was actually a paraphrase of an opinion voiced by Brett Decker, a former Wall Street Journal editor and the author of the book *Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama Is Hastening America's Decline and Ushering a Century of Chinese Domination*, during a radio interview on January 5, 2018. Decker rejected narratives crediting former President Barack Obama's economic policies with the recently developing economic figures during Trump's presidential tenure, framing such assertions as absolutely crazy: "You look at the unemployment numbers, and it's 4.1 percent. I look at Obama and Bush kind of combined when I look at this block of sixteen years. Anyone that says this is inheriting some kind of Obama economy, he had eight years, and in 2010, the unemployment rate was 9.6 percent, absolutely crazy... This idea that it has anything to do with Obama is absolutely crazy. Trump in one year is already better than sixteen years of those guys [i.e., George W. Bush and Barack Obama] put together," said Decker, pointing to a current 17-year high in consumer confidence. Kraychik, Robert. "Brett Decker: Trump in One Year Is Already Better Than 16 Years of Bush, Obama Put Together." Breitbart. January 6, 2018.

False

One of the several forms of political clickbait that has sprung up in the online world in recent years the false attribution of controversial and inflammatory political statements to various celebrities, a form that has already appropriated the name of notables such as Sandra Bullock, Bruce Willis and Demi Moore. Yet another expression of this misleading technique for generating clicks is attributing the sentiment that "Trump in one year is already better than 16 years of Bush and Obama put together" to celebrities ranging from actress Michelle Pfeiffer to singer Dolly Parton:Neither of these women (nor any other prominent entertainer) gave voice to this thought; it was actually a paraphrase of an opinion expressed by Brett Decker, a former Wall Street Journal editor and the author of the book Bowing to Beijing: How Barack Obama Is Hastening Americas Decline and Ushering a Century of Chinese Domination, while discussing economic policy during a radio interview on 5 January 2018:

FMD_train_636

Is There a 'BTS Meal' at McDonald's?

04/19/2021

In mid-April 2021, the fast-food empire McDonald's announced a meal collaboration with the Korean pop boy band BTS. The announcement rocked Twitter, inciting tweets from the millions-strong fanbase of the musical group. The collaboration was revealed on TikTok and Twitter by the fast-food company and BIGHIT MUSIC, the record label of BTS. In an email to Snopes, McDonald's stated that the signature meal is set to include a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets, medium World Famous Fries, a medium Coke, and, for the first time ever in the U.S., sweet chili and cajun dipping sauces inspired by popular recipes from McDonald's South Korea. "BTS truly lights up the world stage, uniting people across the globe through their music," said Morgan Flatley, Chief Marketing Officer of McDonald's USA. "We're excited to bring customers even closer to their beloved band in a way only McDonald's can—through our delicious food—when we introduce the BTS signature order on our menu next month." McDonald's mentioned that the BTS collaboration builds on its partnerships with rapper Travis Scott and reggaeton musician J Balvin last year under the celebrity signature orders program launched in U.S. restaurants in 2020. However, this time around, BTS will be the first member of the program to eventually launch in 50 countries across six continents. The band has great memories with McDonald's. "We're excited about this collaboration and can't wait to share the BTS Meal with the world," said BIGHIT MUSIC. Also known as the Bangtan Boys, the seven-member boy band was formed in 2010 and debuted in 2013. BTS fans are so die-hard that they've given themselves the nickname "The Army," which stands for Adorable Representative M.C. for Youth. McDonald's told Snopes that customers will have the option of ordering BTS meals in participating restaurants or through contactless mobile orders, the app, drive-through, or via McDelivery. The BTS meal will be available at select U.S. restaurants beginning May 26 and will be rolled out to others across the globe through June 25. On May 26, the band's signature order was made available at participating U.S. restaurants nationwide. "Seeing the passion and anticipation from our fans worldwide since we announced the BTS Meal has been incredible," said Morgan Flatley, McDonald's chief marketing and digital customer experience officer, regarding the launch. "And the best part is, we are just getting started. We are preparing to give customers even more ways to experience this collaboration in the coming weeks—through a merch drop and exclusive digital content that will provide a behind-the-scenes look at BTS." UPDATE [May 26, 2021]: This article was updated to announce the launch and include newly released images.

True

In mid-April 2021, the fast-food empire McDonalds announced a meal collaboration with Korean pop boy band BTS. The announcement rocked Twitter, inciting Tweets from the millions-strong musical groups fanbase.The collaboration was announced on TikTok and Twitter by the fast-food company and BIGHIT MUSIC, the record label of BTS. In an email to Snopes, McDonalds said that the signature meal is set to include a 10-piece Chicken McNuggets, medium World Famous Fries, medium Coke and, for the first time ever in the U.S., sweet chili and cajun dipping sauces inspired by popular recipes from McDonalds South Korea. Image courtesy of McDonald'sMcDonalds said that the BTS collaboration builds on McDonalds partnerships with rapper Travis Scott and reggaeton musician J Balvin last year under the celebrity signature orders program launched in U.S. restaurants in 2020. But this time around, BTS will be the first member of the program to eventually launch in 50 countries across six continents.Seeing the passion and anticipation from our fans worldwide since we announced the BTS Meal has been incredible, said Morgan Flatley, McDonald's chief marketing and digital customer experience officer, of the launch. And the best part is, we are just getting started. We are preparing to give customers even more ways to experience this collaboration in the coming weeks through a merch drop and exclusive digital content that will provide a behind-the-scenes look at BTS. Image courtesy of McDonald's

FMD_train_1242

Sniper Avoidance Tips

10/15/2002

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_483

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

01/10/2024

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

False

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

FMD_train_93

Can You Exchange Used Candles at Bath & Body Works?

09/22/2021

For years, the retail company Bath & Body Works has made headlines for its generous return policy. On Sept. 17, 2021, social media user Kristen Peden appeared to take advantage of that policy when she claimed in a series of Facebook posts that she exchanged three used items, including one used candle, at a Tennessee Bath & Body Works for new items. At the time of this writing, the post had garnered 90,000 shares. Questions surrounding the policy have circulated on social media since at least 2018 and have appeared in coverage by publications like The List and on Reddit in 2019. The List posted in 2019, "Is it true that you can return used candles and swap them out for new ones? Or is it a YMMV [your mileage may vary] situation?" Most reports claimed that if a customer keeps the receipt, they can return anything for any reason. Even without the receipt, customers could expect to receive store credit at the very least. At Bath & Body Works, you can return anything you buy, at any time, for any reason. If you have your receipt, you may get a refund. If you don't, you'll likely receive store credit, wrote Good Housekeeping in 2018. But does that apply to used items? Likely not. A look at the Bath & Body Works return policy showed that an empty product cannot be returned solely on the grounds that it has been used. "We just want you to love it! Return anything, anytime for any reason. 100% Guaranteed," wrote the company. "If at any time you're not completely satisfied with the quality of our products, you may return them to any of our Bath & Body Works or White Barn Stores in the US for a full refund, subject to the terms of our Return Policy." In a subsequent post, Peden corrected her earlier statement to note that the warranty extended to ANY EMPTY CONTAINER FROM THIS STORE: PERFUMES, SOAPS, LOTIONS, CANDLES!!!! An update posted the same day said that she had gone to the store in question with her mother and successfully exchanged several items. In the above post, Peden shared a photo of what appears to be her receipt (number 81217003463409172021) that showed three items returned without their original receipt and exchanged for three differently named items, including a candle, of the same value. The location listed on the receipt was for a store located at 373 W. Jackson Street in Cookeville, Tennessee. Snopes sent the receipt to Bath & Body Works, and a company spokesperson confirmed that the customer returned a body cream, a fine fragrance mist, and a candle and received the same items in return. They were not able to determine whether any of the products had been used but did refer our team to a return policy that noted Bath & Body Works only accepts products that do not perform properly. "Our return policy is intended to help customers who have issues related to poor product performance or unsatisfactory customer experience and is not intended to be taken advantage of when a product performs as expected. If a product has been fully used, it would seem that it has met its performance expectations," read the policy. While it is true that Peden returned three items to a Bath & Body Works location in Tennessee in exchange for three items of equal value, we were unable to confirm whether the candle exchanged was actually completely used. Snopes followed up with the company to further confirm the condition of the exchanged items, but until we hear back, we have rated this claim Unproven.

NEI

For years, retail company Bath & Body Works has made headlines for its generous return policy. On Sept. 17, 2021, social media user Kristen Peden appeared to take advantage of that policy when she claimed in a series of Facebook posts that she exchanged three used items, including one used candle, at a Tennessee Bath & Body Works for new items. At the time of this writing, the post had garnered 90,000 shares.Questions surrounding the policy have made social media rounds since at least 2018, and appeared in coverage by publications like The List and was posted to Reddit in 2019:We just want you to love it! Return anything, anytime for any reason. 100% Guaranteed, wrote the company. If at any time you're not completely satisfied with the quality of our products, you may return them to any of our Bath & Body Works or White Barn Stores in the US for a full refund, subject to the terms of our Return Policy.In a subsequent post, Peden corrected the post to note that the warranty extended to ANY EMPTY CONTAINER FROM THIS STORE. PERFUMES SOAPS LOTION CANDLES!!!! An update posted the same day said that she had gone to the store in question with her mother and successfully exchanged several items.In the above post, Peden shared a photo of what appears to be Pedens receipt (number 81217003463409172021) that showed three items returned without their original receipt and exchanged for three differently named items, including a candle, of the same value. The location listed on the receipt was for a store located at 373 W. Jackson Street in Cookeville, Tennessee. Screengrab/FacebookSnopes sent the receipt to Bath & Body Works, and a company spokesperson confirmed that the customer returned a body cream, a fine fragrance mist, and a candle and received the same items in return. They were not able to determine whether any of the products had been used, but did refer our team to a return policy that noted Bath & Body Works only accepts products that do not perform properly.

FMD_train_1666

Mitt Romney is proposing a tax plan that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year.

08/03/2012

You comparison shop for cans of tuna. Mitt Romney rides on Donald Trumps jet.A new Obama campaign ad shows those scenes to hammer at the lifestyle differences between struggling middle-class Americans and the Republican presidential candidate. Then it takes aim at Romneys economic proposals.Now he has a plan, theadsays, that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year.We know from ourprevious reportingon Romneys tax plan that it offers across-the-board cuts, including for the very wealthy. But a new independent study offers broader perspective on how taxpayers at all income levels would be affected by Romneys plan. So we decided to take a look.Romneys tax plan We need to be clear from the start that the problem independent analysts, journalists and fact-checkers have with digging into Romney's tax plan is that much of the plan isn't yet known. Romneyhassuggestedgeneral parameters: The rate cuts would be paid for without adding to the deficit. People at the high end will still pay the same share of the tax burden theyre paying now. Everyone would see tax rate reductions. He has outlined specific tax cuts on hiscampaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent. To offset those cuts, Romney hashinted thathe would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes. The effect of Romney's plan Knowing all that, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that evaluates tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates,examinedthe effect of Romneys tax rate cuts combined with the elimination of several common tax deductions. Those include the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction and the exclusion for health insurance. The center published its findings on Aug. 1, 2012. To try and keep with Romney's guiding principles, the authors eliminated deductions and write-offs -- starting with the deductions for top earners first -- until they came up with enough revenue to offset the $360 billion in tax cuts that are part of Romney's plan. They determined that people who earn $1 million or more in taxable income would see an average net tax decrease of $87,117. Theyd save $175,961 from Romney's tax cut, but lose $88,444 in deductions. They would still get a tax cut, said Adam Looney, one of the authors. The dollar value of the tax cuts is just way bigger than the mortgage interest and other deductions. Theres no way to implement this plan in a way that doesnt result in a pretty big tax cut for that group (those making more than $1 million).People who earn between $500,000 and $1 million would see a cut of about $17,000, and taxes for people with incomes between $200,000 and $500,000 would decrease by about $1,800, the study found. But to make Romney's plan revenue neutral, deductions would also have to be removed for people with incomes below $200,000, and the effects of that would be significant, the study found. In fact, the elimination of the deductions would mean outright tax increases for everyone with incomes below $200,000. People with taxable income between $50,000 and $75,000, for example, would see an average net tax increase of $641. Theyd save $984 from Romney's rate cut, but lose $2,672 in write-offs.The authors specifically noted that taxpayers with children whose income is below $200,000 would see their taxes go up by an average of $2,041 -- the figure highlighted in Obamas ad.The reason for the increase is that the most popular tax breaks heavily benefit middle- and lower-income families, the 95 percent of the population earning less than $200,000 who carry mortgage debt and use employer-provided health insurance. And though Romney has suggested he would focus on taking the deductions away from the wealthy, the study concluded that alone would not make up the difference of the revenue sacrificed when rates are slashed.Somebody has to foot the bill for those tax cuts, Looney said. You have to tap into middle- and lower-income households. Bottom line: the study found that Romney couldn't keep all his goals based on what we know about his plan.Romney campaigns responseWhen the study appeared online, the Romney campaignposted a responseon its website that did not specifically address the discrepancy.President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We've been down that road before and it's led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams.Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obamas Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010.William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bushs Council of Economic Advisers.Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaigns policy director, later added in a press release that the study ignored the corporate tax rate cut Romney proposes and his deficit reduction plan.These glaring gaps invalidate the reports conclusions, Chen said. The Romney campaign said that the study ignored the assertion that lower tax rates will grow the economy -- which they say will translate into more tax revenues. That will help make the plan revenue neutral even with lower overall tax rates. Spending cuts, likewise, could help balance the tax cuts without having to raise taxes on people making less than $200,000. The study, for the record, did consider that possibility but concluded it was impossible to evaluate the effect of spending cuts without knowing what would be cut. They also noted that government spending tends to benefit low- and middle-income households. We find nothing in the study that distorts Romneys proposals. It makes assumptions favorable to Romney, namely that his plan would lead to greater economic growth and raise revenues. The Tax Policy Center, whose director is another former adviser to Bush, is well-respected for its unbiased work, and even the Romney campaign praised it in November 2011 for offering objective, third-party analysis. Our rulingObama said Romney is proposing a tax plan that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle class families by up to $2,000 a year. The claims are based on a study by the Tax Policy Center, which used what Romney has said about his tax plan and attempted to calculate outcomes for different groups of taxpayers. The study prioritizes the idea that the plan would be revenue neutral. In that scenario, millionaires lose deductions, but the lower rates would still decrease their tax bill by an average of $87,000. Middle-class taxpayers would see lower tax rates, too, but the loss of exemptions and deductions would hit them harder. People making $200,000 or less a year would see their taxes rise by an average of about $2,000. The study is making the point that Romneys plan is untenable: to cut rates that much without adding to the deficit, something has to give. It necessarily makes some assumptions, and therefore these conclusions are not definite as long as the details of the plan remain unknown. For that reason, people should be cautious in calling this Romney's plan. We rate the claim Mostly True.

True

You comparison shop for cans of tuna. Mitt Romney rides on Donald Trumps jet.A new Obama campaign ad shows those scenes to hammer at the lifestyle differences between struggling middle-class Americans and the Republican presidential candidate. Then it takes aim at Romneys economic proposals.Now he has a plan, theadsays, that would give millionaires another tax break and raises taxes on middle-class families by up to $2,000 a year.We know from ourprevious reportingon Romneys tax plan that it offers across-the-board cuts, including for the very wealthy. But a new independent study offers broader perspective on how taxpayers at all income levels would be affected by Romneys plan.Romneyhassuggestedgeneral parameters:He has outlined specific tax cuts on hiscampaign website. They include: cutting marginal rates by 20 percent on a permanent, across-the-board basis; eliminating interest, dividend and capital gains taxes for taxpayers earning less than $200,000; eliminating the estate tax; and repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax.Romney would also cut the corporate rate to 25 percent.To offset those cuts, Romney hashinted thathe would eliminate some common tax write-offs and deductions for people with high incomes.Knowing all that, the Tax Policy Center, a joint project of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution that evaluates tax proposals submitted by presidential candidates,examinedthe effect of Romneys tax rate cuts combined with the elimination of several common tax deductions. Those include the mortgage interest deduction, charitable giving deduction and the exclusion for health insurance. The center published its findings on Aug. 1, 2012.Bottom line: the study found that Romney couldn't keep all his goals based on what we know about his plan.Romney campaigns responseWhen the study appeared online, the Romney campaignposted a responseon its website that did not specifically address the discrepancy.President Obama continues to tout liberal studies calling for more tax hikes and more government spending. We've been down that road before and it's led us to 41 straight months of unemployment above 8 percent, said Romney spokesman Ryan Williams.Looney is a senior fellow in economic studies at Brookings who has a Ph.D. from Harvard University. He served on Obamas Council of Economic Advisers in 2009 and 2010.William Gale, another of the authors, is vice president of Brookings and director of its economic studies program. He served on President George H.W. Bushs Council of Economic Advisers.Lanhee Chen, the Romney campaigns policy director, later added in a press release that the study ignored the corporate tax rate cut Romney proposes and his deficit reduction plan.These glaring gaps invalidate the reports conclusions, Chen said.

FMD_train_848

Says President Donald Trump took more than a month to allocate Congress emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued.

06/01/2020

Native American tribes have beenamong the hardest hitby the coronavirus pandemic, and Joe Biden claims that President Donald Trump has not done enough to help. Donald Trump has failed to live up to our trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans,Biden told The Arizona RepublicMay 21. He took more than a month to allocate Congress emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued. He has failed to provide tribes with adequate protective personal equipment and medical supplies. Its unacceptable. Indian treaty rightsrecognized and established rights, benefits, and conditions for tribes who agreed to cede millions of acres of land to the United States and to accept the United States protection. Under a trust responsibility legal principle, the United States federal government is obligated to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes. Is Biden, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee, right that it took more than a month for tribes to get funding allocated by Congress, and that it happened only after suing the Trump administration? The chronology lines up, but omits important context. The Treasury Department has argued that payments were delayed because it is required to consult with tribes and the Interior Department regarding how much money to allocate to tribes.That consultation processstartedbefore the lawsuit over the delay in payments.A separate lawsuit filed by tribes to prevent corporations in Alaska from receiving aid has also affected the process. Congress passed theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and Trump signed it into law March 27. The $2.2 trillion measure included a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund for states, local governments, and tribal governments. The law set aside $8 billion for tribal governments. The law said the Treasury secretary had to make the payments within 30 days; so by April 26, all entities were supposed to have received funds. It wasnt until May 5 that the Treasury Departmentsaidit would begin making funds available to tribal governments. So that part of Bidens claim adds up. By May 5, the Trump administration was facing several lawsuits by multiple tribes: for delay of payment. The lawsuits also challenged the administration for intending to direct some of the funds to theAlaska Native Corporations, which are regional and village corporations recognized under Alaska law and created by Congress as part of theAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971. In the lawsuit to stop the corporations from getting a share of the $8 billion, tribes argued that corporations do not meet the statutory definition of tribal government, or Indian tribe and therefore did not qualify for the relief. A federal district judge on April 27 issued apreliminary injunctionto prevent the Treasury from giving money to the corporations. Pending a final determination, the judge did not direct the Treasury secretary to immediately disburse the entire $8 billion to the tribes. In its May 5 announcement, the Trump administration said it would begin paying tribes 60% of the $8 billion, or $4.8 billion, based on population data. The remaining 40% would be paid at a later date based on employment data and tribe expenses related to COVID-19. Amounts calculated for corporations would be held back until pending litigation relating to their eligibility is resolved. The Navajo Nation, which joined tribes in the lawsuit, on May 5saidthe judges April 27 ruling led to the (Treasury) Departments announcement to begin distributing funds to federally-recognized tribes. In a separate lawsuit over the delay in the disbursement of funds, lawyers for the Trump administrationarguedthat providing funds to tribal governments required a more involved and difficult process than the one for states and local governments. While the CARES Act imposed a 30-day deadline for funds disbursement, it also called for a consultation process among tribes and the Treasury and Interior departments. According to the Trump administration, Treasury staff spent about 2,200 hours on efforts to get tribes the appropriated money. The same federal district judge from the corporations case said that those hours of labor arguably should have produced better results, but a court intervention was not warranted. Egregious delay is the governing standard, and the Secretary is not there quite yet, even in the midst of a public health crisis, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in a May 11opinion. Mehta did not find that the Treasury secretary was lagging unreasonably behind in delivering the funds. The Secretary has not been twiddling his thumbs, he said, citing language from a precedent. Mehta said he would not give the Treasury department a deadline for disbursing the rest of the funds, but if it took the department double the amount of time Congress directed for the disbursement, then the question of egregiousness becomes a closer one than it is today. Biden said Trump took more than a month to allocate Congress emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued. It did take more than a month for tribes to begin receiving funds appropriated by Congress, and they began to flow after lawsuits were filed against the Trump administration. But a consultation process for disbursing the funds began before the administration was sued. We rate Bidens statement Mostly True.

True

Native American tribes have beenamong the hardest hitby the coronavirus pandemic, and Joe Biden claims that President Donald Trump has not done enough to help.Donald Trump has failed to live up to our trust and treaty obligations to Native Americans,Biden told The Arizona RepublicMay 21. He took more than a month to allocate Congress emergency funding to tribes and only did so after tribes sued. He has failed to provide tribes with adequate protective personal equipment and medical supplies. Its unacceptable.Indian treaty rightsrecognized and established rights, benefits, and conditions for tribes who agreed to cede millions of acres of land to the United States and to accept the United States protection. Under a trust responsibility legal principle, the United States federal government is obligated to ensure the survival and welfare of Indian tribes.The Treasury Department has argued that payments were delayed because it is required to consult with tribes and the Interior Department regarding how much money to allocate to tribes.That consultation processstartedbefore the lawsuit over the delay in payments.A separate lawsuit filed by tribes to prevent corporations in Alaska from receiving aid has also affected the process.Congress passed theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, or CARES Act, and Trump signed it into law March 27. The $2.2 trillion measure included a $150 billion Coronavirus Relief Fund for states, local governments, and tribal governments.The law set aside $8 billion for tribal governments. The law said the Treasury secretary had to make the payments within 30 days; so by April 26, all entities were supposed to have received funds. It wasnt until May 5 that the Treasury Departmentsaidit would begin making funds available to tribal governments. So that part of Bidens claim adds up.By May 5, the Trump administration was facing several lawsuits by multiple tribes: for delay of payment. The lawsuits also challenged the administration for intending to direct some of the funds to theAlaska Native Corporations, which are regional and village corporations recognized under Alaska law and created by Congress as part of theAlaska Native Claims Settlement Act of 1971.In the lawsuit to stop the corporations from getting a share of the $8 billion, tribes argued that corporations do not meet the statutory definition of tribal government, or Indian tribe and therefore did not qualify for the relief. A federal district judge on April 27 issued apreliminary injunctionto prevent the Treasury from giving money to the corporations. Pending a final determination, the judge did not direct the Treasury secretary to immediately disburse the entire $8 billion to the tribes.The Navajo Nation, which joined tribes in the lawsuit, on May 5saidthe judges April 27 ruling led to the (Treasury) Departments announcement to begin distributing funds to federally-recognized tribes.In a separate lawsuit over the delay in the disbursement of funds, lawyers for the Trump administrationarguedthat providing funds to tribal governments required a more involved and difficult process than the one for states and local governments.Egregious delay is the governing standard, and the Secretary is not there quite yet, even in the midst of a public health crisis, U.S. District Court Judge Amit P. Mehta wrote in a May 11opinion.

FMD_train_971

No, 'Dog the Bounty Hunter' Is Not Dead

11/29/2019

In late 2019, readers asked us about blog posts that were widely shared on social media and falsely claimed that the reality television star Duane Chapman, known as "Dog the Bounty Hunter," had died either by suicide or from a pulmonary embolism. Those reports were false. Beginning on Nov. 20, admirers of Chapman and his late wife, Beth, who died in June after herself being the subject of death hoaxes, began posting tributes to him and sharing one of two blog posts. hoaxes The first purported to be hosted by a website with the domain name whatnow.actual-events.com, but when internet users clicked on the story on social media, they were redirected to the domain newspanel.suzeraincollections.com. There, the story carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Pulmonary Embolism. He Didn't Survive His Second Attack. He Was 66 -- WGN." first The highly dubious website falsely attributed the claim about Chapman's death to WGN America, a real U.S. television network that broadcast the Chapmans' most recent reality show "Dog's Most Wanted." The hoax article also misleadingly used WGN America's logo in a sharebait video that purported to be a television news report about Chapman's death, but that paused after a few seconds and required users to share the article on social media in order to continue watching: In reality, WGN America had no connection to the story and did not report on Chapman's death in November 2019, because Chapman did not die in November 2019. The specific claim that Chapman had died from a pulmonary embolism (a blocked artery in the lungs) was rather insidious. At first glance, it appeared especially plausible to many fans of the television star because he was in fact diagnosed with that very problem in September 2019. diagnosed The second blog post shared by social media users was even more distasteful than the first. It falsely and misleadingly used the logo of BBC News, a highly reputable and widely trusted information source, to report that Chapman had taken his own life. In this instance, social media users shared an article that appeared to be hosted on the domain bbc-newsroom.actualeventstv.com, but which redirected to news-room.easystepsdiy.info. On social media, the post carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News" but when users redirected to the source, the article's headline proclaimed: shared proclaimed "Breaking: (Actual Suicide Video) Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News." Despite the extremely distasteful claim that the video in the article contained footage of Chapman's suicide, it contained nothing of the sort and, just as in the first article, the video stopped after a second or two and required viewers to share the post on social media in order to continue watching. The claim that Chapman had taken his own life was, like the claim he had died of a pulmonary embolism, particularly insidious. In the season finale of "Dog's Most Wanted," broadcast by WGN America on Nov. 6, Chapman spoke about the recent death of his wife from cancer, and the considerable difficulty he was experiencing in coping with her loss. At one moment in the episode, he reportedly discussed how he had contemplated taking his own life, such was his grief. People magazine quoted Chapman as saying: People "I just hope that I dont live very much longer without her, because now she made the first step, shes through the gate," he added. She paved a way for me. I want to take a [god damn] pain pill so bad. I feel like if I did something to myself right now and passed away suicidal and I got to heaven and was like, Hi honey, and would she go, You [dumb ass], why would you do that? Or would she go, Wow, youre here. Ill be like Of course Im here. You left me. Im here. So, am I obligated to do that? Because of that widely reported revelation, a report that Chapman had died by suicide would have appeared somewhat plausible to many readers. The dubious nature of the websites involved, and the absence of any corroborating evidence or reports by actual news organizations, meant that some readers would have immediately recognized the stories as hoaxes. However, a significant number were taken in by them, and shared them on social media, to the extent that Chapman himself intervened. He provided the gossip website TMZ a photograph of himself holding the Nov. 19 edition of the Denver Post, and a handwritten sign that read "I'm alive!" Chapman then posted a screenshot of that article to his own Instagram page the next day. photograph Instagram If you need help, call the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline: 1-800-273-8255. Or contact Crisis Text Line by texting HOME to 741741. Kasprak, Alex. "Outdated: Beth Chapman Death Hoax." Snopes.com. 22 April 2019. Lee, Ashley. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Reveals Pulmonary Embolism Diagnosis." The Los Angeles Times. 28 September 2019. Dugan, Christina. "Dog the Bounty Hunter Contemplates Suicide After Wife Beth's Death on 'Dog's Most Wanted' Finale." People. 6 November 2019. TMZ. "Dog the Bounty Hunter: Nope, He's Not Dead...Look, I'm Alive!" 20 November 2019.

False

Those reports were false. Beginning on Nov. 20, admirers of Chapman and his late wife, Beth, who died in June after herself being the subject of death hoaxes, began posting tributes to him and sharing one of two blog posts. The first purported to be hosted by a website with the domain name whatnow.actual-events.com, but when internet users clicked on the story on social media, they were redirected to the domain newspanel.suzeraincollections.com. There, the story carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Pulmonary Embolism. He Didn't Survive His Second Attack. He Was 66 -- WGN." The specific claim that Chapman had died from a pulmonary embolism (a blocked artery in the lungs) was rather insidious. At first glance, it appeared especially plausible to many fans of the television star because he was in fact diagnosed with that very problem in September 2019.In this instance, social media users shared an article that appeared to be hosted on the domain bbc-newsroom.actualeventstv.com, but which redirected to news-room.easystepsdiy.info. On social media, the post carried the headline "Duane 'Dog' Chapman Died of Suicide After Depression Attack on His Sickness -- BBC News" but when users redirected to the source, the article's headline proclaimed: At one moment in the episode, he reportedly discussed how he had contemplated taking his own life, such was his grief. People magazine quoted Chapman as saying:He provided the gossip website TMZ a photograph of himself holding the Nov. 19 edition of the Denver Post, and a handwritten sign that read "I'm alive!" Chapman then posted a screenshot of that article to his own Instagram page the next day.

FMD_train_1738

The U.S.tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent, while the business tax rate in Canada is 15 percent.

12/10/2015

Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren. A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens On the Record show. We have to reform the U.S. tax code if we want to create more economic growth and more jobs, said Ryan, who was chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee before becoming speaker. Ryan then dropped a stat thats long been one of his key talking points, including when he was the GOPs 2012 vice presidential candidate. The tax rate on successful small businesses is 44.6 percent right now, Ryan said. The tax rate on businesses in Canada is 15 percent. So we are taxing American businesses at a much higher rate than our foreign competitors are. He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes. That seems like quite a gap. Is Ryan right? Digging into the numbers PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent. That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent. Businesses in Canada, however, also pay provincial taxes. The combination of the central and provincial corporate tax rates has fallen from 42.94 percent to 26.1 percent. Using the same data for the 34 countries examined, the average 2012 tax rate was slightly under 25 percent. The tax claim that Ryan made on Fox News was somewhat different. He cited the business tax rate in Canada, and compared it with the U.S. tax rate on small businesses, which he put at 44.6 percent. To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number. As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service. Tables on that web site put the federal tax rate in Canada at 15 percent, which, again, is what Ryan cited. The group says that provincial tax rates for business range from 16 percent in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island to 10 percent in Alberta. Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada. CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada. The top federal tax rate for businesses is 15 percent. However, they do have a special small business rate of 11 percent, Hodge said in an email. Mr. Ryan was obviously referring to the main rate, not the special small business rate. That would make the differences even starker. Our rating While arguing for tax reform, Ryan compared the difference in tax rates for small businesses in the United States with the general business tax rate in Canada. He was right on both numbers. Indeed, if he used the small business rate in Canada, the gap would be even larger. We rate his claim True.

True

Shortly after hiselection as House Speaker, U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis) spelled out his agenda for Fox News anchor Greta Van Susteren.A key concern is tax reform, Ryan saidduring the Nov. 4, 2015 appearanceon Van Susterens On the Record show.He made a similar claim Nov. 15, 2015, during an interview onCBS News 60 Minutes.PolitiFact National looked into a version of this claim made during the 2012 vice presidential debate, whenRyan stated:The Canadians they (dropped) their tax rates to 15 percent. The average tax rate on businesses in the industrialized world is 25 percent.That claim was ratedMostly True. According to theOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of advanced industrialized nations, Canadas central government corporate rate has declined from 29.12 percent to 15 percent.To support the claim, Ryans office cited a 2013 report by the Ways and Means Committee,Tax Revenues to More Than Double by 2023, While Top Tax Rates Hit Highest Level Since 1986.That report puts the federal tax rate for small businesses at 44.6 percent. So Ryans right on that number.As for the second part of the claim, Ryans office pointed us toTaxtips.ca, a Canadian tax and financial information service.Scott Hodge, president of the Washington D.C.-based Tax Foundation, agreed that Ryan had it right, based on hisgroups data. If anything, Hodge said, Ryan understated the gap between the United States and Canada.CitingCanadas Revenue Agency, Hodge said that Ryan compared U.S. small businesses with the general business rate in Canada.

FMD_train_1425

Did Pepsi Donate $100M to Black Lives Matter?

08/24/2020

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

False

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

FMD_train_400

American homeownership rate in Q2 2016 was 62.9% - lowest rate in 51yrs.

08/02/2016

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has often used economic statistics to attack President Barack Obamas administration, and he did the same following the Democratic National Convention. American homeownership rate in Q2 2016 was 62.9% - lowest rate in 51yrs, TrumptweetedJuly 30, 2016. WE will bring back the 'American Dream! We havent fact-checked Trump on this particular statistic before, so we took a look at the data. On the numbers The homeownership rate isdefinedas the proportion of occupied households actually owned by those living there. A Census Bureaureportreleased last week contains Trumps 62.9 percent figure, referring to the non-seasonally-adjusted homeownership rate. Trumps tweet referred toFederal Reserve Economic Datafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. His math checks out the homeownership rate (again not seasonally adjusted) was last this low in 1965, 51 years ago. As the graph shows, the rate grew steadily since 1995, reaching a 69 percent peak in 2005. But it has been in decline ever since. Otherstudiespaint a similar picture, such as one finding the share of first-time home buyers in 2015 was 32 percent, the lowest since 1987. So Trumps data is accurate, but there are some caveats. Demographic trends Experts told us millennials are largely to blame for the dropping homeownership rate, but its as much their lifestyle preferences as it is a sign of a poor economy. Many millennials graduated college at the onset of the 2008 recession, meaning more people chose to live with their parents, said Adam DeSanctis, economic issues media manager at the National Association of Realtors. Onesurveyidentified rising student and credit card debt, as well as difficulties saving for down payments, as key deterrents. At the same time, lifestyle choices such as marrying later in life, going to college and having fewer children all contribute to lower levels of homeownership, DeSanctis said. Jed Kolko, an independent housing economist,arguesthat lifestyle shifts, not financial variables, are primarily responsible for more youth living with their parents. Many millennials have expressed little desire to own a home, said Byron Studdard, a financial adviser at Studdard Financial, which focuses on estate and retirement planning. Witnessing the financial crisis and their parents difficulties paying off their mortgages, as well as general desire to be mobile, serve as deterrents. Studdard also cautioned against comparisons to 1965, because that was a different generation that was more likely than millennials to view homeownership as the first step to prosperity. Im not sure the homeownership rate is necessarily going to be a good indicator of if America is great again, like it was when we had the World War II generation, Studdard explained. How big a problem is it? While the falling homeownership rate is not a positive, economists we spoke to disagreed on how problematic it was. In aNew York Timesarticle, Kolko wrote that the homeownership rate is misleading because it fails to capture renters. He said the headship rate the percent of adults heading a household is a better figure that captures both owners and renters. Increases in the headship rate still stimulates household construction, he said. That rate, according to the Census Bureaus 2015 Current Population Survey, has been going up as of 2013. Slight decreases in owner-occupied households were outpaced by increases in renter households, said Ralph McLaughlin, chief economist at Trulia, a company providing real estate information for buyers and sellers. Yet renter-households still boost demand for construction and other goods, he said. The comparative benefits of renting versus owning a home are still disputed, said Aaron Terrazas, a senior economist at Zillow, an online real estate database company. On the other hand, DeSanctis said the low homeownership rate poses problems for the American economy. Owning a home has typically been a major source of investment for the middle class, and renting does not fulfill the same investment function. As a result, the country has become more unequal in recent years as rising home values have benefitted current homeowners greatly at a time more people are renting and facing escalating rental prices each year, he said. He said Trump has a point in identifying the troubles people have buying a home, especially as rising rental rates and housing prices surpass income gains. The biggest housing losses immediately after the recession affected middle-aged adults, Terrazas said. Our ruling Trump said homeownership is at its lowest since 1965. The numbers back him up. However, there are some caveats. Some of the decline is due to lifestyle, and not economic, changes. In addition, experts told us the housing market is not in as dire straits as one statistic suggests. On balance, we rate this claim Mostly True.

True

American homeownership rate in Q2 2016 was 62.9% - lowest rate in 51yrs, TrumptweetedJuly 30, 2016. WE will bring back the 'American Dream!The homeownership rate isdefinedas the proportion of occupied households actually owned by those living there. A Census Bureaureportreleased last week contains Trumps 62.9 percent figure, referring to the non-seasonally-adjusted homeownership rate.Trumps tweet referred toFederal Reserve Economic Datafrom the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. His math checks out the homeownership rate (again not seasonally adjusted) was last this low in 1965, 51 years ago.Otherstudiespaint a similar picture, such as one finding the share of first-time home buyers in 2015 was 32 percent, the lowest since 1987.Many millennials graduated college at the onset of the 2008 recession, meaning more people chose to live with their parents, said Adam DeSanctis, economic issues media manager at the National Association of Realtors. Onesurveyidentified rising student and credit card debt, as well as difficulties saving for down payments, as key deterrents.At the same time, lifestyle choices such as marrying later in life, going to college and having fewer children all contribute to lower levels of homeownership, DeSanctis said. Jed Kolko, an independent housing economist,arguesthat lifestyle shifts, not financial variables, are primarily responsible for more youth living with their parents.In aNew York Timesarticle, Kolko wrote that the homeownership rate is misleading because it fails to capture renters.

FMD_train_445

Fired for Being Gay

04/10/2013

Claim: The map shows states in which employees can be "fired for being gay." PARTLY Example: [Collected via e-mail, April 2013] I saw a map of states where you can be fired for being gay. Is this true? Origins: The map displayed above identifies twenty-nine states (shown in red) where, according to the accompanying title, "you can be fired for being gay." This map is "true" in the broad sense that it identifies states that do not currently have statewide laws prohibiting all employers from engaging in discrimination based on sexual orientation, but it is not the case that those states are completely devoid of protections against that form of discrimination. Anti-discrimination laws typically address not just discrimination in the termination of employees but also in other job-related aspects, such as hiring, promotion, job assignment, and compensation. In general, employees who work on an at-will basis may (with some narrow exceptions) be terminated without cause and without their employers incurring legal liability. However, members of certain protected classes may not be discriminated against in employment for reasons related to the characteristics that define those classes (e.g., sex, race, religion, national origin, age). Since the U.S. has not yet enacted national regulations establishing sexual orientation as a protected class, most employees who have such protection are afforded it based on state laws. While the twenty-nine states shown in red above may currently lack statewide laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, it is not true that all employers in all of those states may freely fire employees "for being gay." Some of those red states have laws that protect public (i.e., government) employees from sexual orientation discrimination (but not those who work in the private sector), some of those states have laws passed at county or city levels that protect employees in those local areas from such discrimination, and some of those states protect public employees from employment discrimination through means other than laws (e.g., executive orders, administrative orders, personnel regulations). Maps like the ones displayed below present more detailed representations (at both the statewide and local levels) of the status of laws banning employment discrimination based on sexual orientation in the United States: Last updated: 10 April 2013

True

Anti-discrimination laws typically address not just discrimination in the termination of employees but also in other job-related aspects, such as hiring, promotion, job assignment, and compensation. In general, employees who work on an at-will basis may (with some narrow exceptions) be terminated without cause and without their employers incurring legal liability. However, members of certain protected classes may not be discriminated against in employment for reasons related to the characteristics that make them members of those classes (e.g., sex, race, religion, national origin, age). Since the U.S. has not yet enacted national regulations establishing sexual orientation as a protected class, most employees who have such protection are afforded it on the basis of state laws.

FMD_train_764

Reynolds Rap

08/17/2001

Claim: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2001] Jessie Jackson has added former Chicago democratic congressman Mel Reynolds to the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition's payroll. Reynolds was among the 176 criminals excused in President Clinton's last-minute forgiveness spree. Reynolds received a commutation of his six-and-a-half-year federal sentence for 15 convictions of wire fraud, bank fraud & lies to the Federal Election Commission. He is more notorious; however, for concurrently serving five years for sleeping with an underage campaign volunteer. This is a first in American politics: An ex-congressman who had sex with a subordinate won clemency from a president who had sex with a subordinate, then was hired by a clergyman who had sex with a subordinate. His new job? Youth counselor. Origins: We can't say with absolute certainty that what's described above is "a first in American politics," since the sexual peccadilloes of American politicians were not always as widely publicized as they are now, but the gist of the piece is true (although it originally circulated back in 2001, so it now references events that occurred many years ago and not just recently): 1995-1997: President Bill Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky, then a 21-year-old unpaid White House intern working in the office of Leon Panetta, Clinton's Chief of Staff, is quite familiar to anyone who follows American politics. Monica Lewinsky January 2001: The National Enquirer revealed that Jesse Jackson had been carrying on a four-year affair with Karin L. Stanford, a 39-year-old former aide with his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition staff, and that Jackson had fathered the child Stanford bore in May 1999. (Jackson has been married to Jacqueline Brown since 1962.) Karin L. Stanford January 2001: Just before leaving office, President Clinton (at the urging of Jesse Jackson, among others) commuted the sentence of former Illinois congressman Mel Reynolds, who had spent 30 months in a state prison for statutory rape (i.e., having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer) and was serving a five-year sentence in federal prison for lying to obtain loans and illegally diverting campaign money for personal use. Mel Reynolds January 2001: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that former congressman Mel Reynolds would be working as the community development director of Salem Baptist Church in south-side Chicago, and as a consultant for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, trying to decrease the number of young African-Americans going to prison. (Reynolds' position would be more accurately characterized as that of an advisor on prison reform rather than a "Youth counselor," however.) reported Rainbow/PUSH In February 2014, Mel Reynolds was arrested in Zimbabwe for violating immigration laws and possessing pornographic material and was later deported to South Africa. In June 2015, Reynolds was indicted on charges of failing to file income tax returns from 2009 through 2012. arrested indicted Last updated: 26 June 2015 Page, Susan. "Who Gets a Pardon? It Depends on Who Asks." USA Today. 20 March 2001 (p. A7). Page, Susan and Mimi Hall. "Pardon Drama Casts Wide Net." USA Today. 23 Feburary 2001 (p. A7). Sneed, Michael. "Reynolds Might Be Really Enjoying the Ride." Chicago Sun-Times. 25 February 2001 (p. 12). Associated Press. "Celeb Pardon Push." Chicago Sun-Times. "Farrakhan Back from the Brink."

NEI

1995-1997: President Bill Clinton's involvement with Monica Lewinsky, then a 21-year-old unpaid White House intern working in the office of Leon Panetta, Clinton's Chief of Staff, is quite familiar to anyone who follows American politics. January 2001: The National Enquirer revealed that Jesse Jackson had been carrying on a four-year affair with Karin L. Stanford, a 39-year-old former aide with his Rainbow/PUSH Coalition staff, and that Jackson had fathered the child Stanford bore in May 1999. (Jackson has been married to Jacqueline Brown since 1962.) January 2001: Just before leaving office, President Clinton (at the urging of Jesse Jackson, among others) commuted the sentence of former Illinois congressman Mel Reynolds, who had spent 30 months in a state prison for statutory rape (i.e., having sex with a 16-year-old campaign volunteer) and was serving a five-year sentence in federal prison for lying to obtain loans and illegally diverting campaign money for personal use. January 2001: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that former congressman Mel Reynolds would be working as the community development director of Salem Baptist Church in south-side Chicago, and as a consultant for Jesse Jackson's Rainbow/PUSH Coalition, trying to decrease the number of young African-Americans going to prison. (Reynolds' position would be more accurately characterized as that of an advisor on prison reform rather than a "Youth counselor," however.)In February 2014, Mel Reynolds was arrested in Zimbabwe for violating immigration laws and possessing pornographic material and was later deported to South Africa. In June 2015, Reynolds was indicted on charges of failing to file income tax returns from 2009 through 2012.

FMD_train_217

Congress Removes Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction, and EITC from Tax Code

11/13/2014

Claim: Congress has eliminated the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit (EITC), and mortgage deductions from the tax code under pressure from lobby groups and the Koch brothers. Example: [Collected via Twitter, November 2014] Are u kidding!? Congress Eliminates Child Tax Credit, Mortgage Deduction & E.I.T.C Origins: On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans. article According to the article, the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction were all forms of "entitlement payouts" that had been eliminated beginning with the 2014 fiscal year to allow "job creators" to flourish: The deeply unpopular congress, whose approval rating hovers around a historic low of 10%, has voted to remove the child tax credit, the earned income tax credit and the mortgage interest deduction from the tax code starting with the 2014 fiscal year. The move is almost assured to solidify the perception of the 113rd Congress of the United States as deeply disconnected from the struggles and desires of the populace it is supposed to serve. The move, long championed by entitlement reform advocates like congressman Paul Ryan R-Wisconsin and Ted Cruz R-Texas, will cut entitlement payouts by a staggering 177 billion dollars. 54.33 billion dollars in savings will be realized from discontinuing the earned income tax credit, which generally pays those making less than 12 thousand dollars yearly large cash tax rebates far in excess of the actual tax they paid. 69.7 billion will be saved from the mortgage interest tax deduction, which critics say primarily favors top income earners. The elimination of the child tax credit, which critics say serves no fair purpose, will result in an additional 54 billion dollar savings. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6." 15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6 The article also quoted economist "Paul Horner" on Congress' purported tax credit repeal. If that name sounds familiar, it's because Paul Horner is a National Report writer whose name is used as a recurring character in various stories published by the site. Last updated: 13 November 2014 <

False

Origins: On 11 November 2014, the National Report published an article claiming a "heavy burst of lobbying" by groups including the Koch brothers' Koch Industries preceded a vote whereby Congress rescinded several common tax breaks long afforded to millions of Americans. The article was nothing but a chain-yanking spoof, however: The National Report is a well-known fake news outlet notorious for publishing click-baiting, completely false stories such as "15 Year Old Who 'SWATTED' Gamer Convicted of Domestic Terrorism," "Solar Panels Drain the Sun's Energy, Experts Say," and "Vince Gilligan Announces Breaking Bad Season 6."

FMD_train_1028

Sarah Palin Calls to Boycott Mall of America Because 'Santa Was Always White in the Bible'

12/05/2016

On 3 December 2016, Politicops published an article reporting that Alaska's former governor and 2008 vice presidential pick, Sarah Palin, called for a boycott of the Mall of America after it hired a black man to play Santa, arguing that the character was always "white" in the "Bible." The announcement that the Mall of America was welcoming its first black Santa Claus was greeted in many quarters as a positive development. However, as might be expected in a country that has become increasingly comfortable expressing racist sentiments, many were highly offended. Among those who were upset by this decision was former half-term governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin. The sharp-tongued Republican wasted no time in condemning the company's actions, taking to social media to post comments calling for a boycott and urging people to run the Mall of America into the ground, based on the belief that Santa had always been white in the Bible. "No, I refuse to believe that they went this far in trying to cater to minorities. I thought the company had some backbone, but I guess I was wrong," Palin told the Minneapolis Star-Tribune. She also argued that hiring a non-white Santa Claus was the last straw in corporate America's distortion of traditional conservative Christian values, claiming that they realized they couldn't make any more money off the usual scams and techniques they had been using. She added, "That's why they had to come up with something new and out of the box, or at least something that appeared that way in their minds. But this proves that they have no morals and that they won't shy away from even the most blatant twisting of traditional Christian values, just so they can make more money. I understand the need to make a profit to get by and have a good life, but I don't understand stomping on things that are holy and sacred to accomplish that." Palin concluded, "Americans, especially white ones, need to boycott the company and run it into the ground, so that they never come up with such an offensive and sacrilegious idea again." Like all items published by Politicops (and sister sites Religionlo, Politicalo, and Politcops), the article's first paragraph referenced a real debate over the Mall of America's black Santa. However, Palin made no such remarks about a boycott, and the fabricated addition is standard for this particular family of fake news outlets. Articles from Newslo and its sister sites typically begin with a paragraph of fact-based information before launching into fabricated details. Newslo's fake news sites often display under the lesser-known Politicops domain on social media, but all include a button allowing readers to "show facts" or "hide facts" to highlight the truthful material in the article. However, all articles display by default in "hide facts" mode, so most readers view articles (or their headlines on social media) without the embellishments marked. Prior Newslo fabrications included claims that Chris Christie thought a female Viagra would cause an uptick in "lesbianism" (and separately that he voted down a gender pay parity bill for Bible-based reasons), an Alabama politician tried to implement saliva-based "hunger tests" for food stamp recipients, Ted Cruz affirmed he'd run as a Democrat if something affected Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Mike Pence said that if abortion was legal in cases of rape, women would try to "get raped" to obtain an abortion, the father of Brock Turner lamented the absence of punishment for the victim in his son's sexual assault case, and that televangelist Pat Robertson claimed David Bowie did not die but was kidnapped by demons.

False

On 3 December 2016, Politicops published an article reporting that Alaska's former governor (and 2008 vice presidential pick) Sarah Palin called for a boycott of the Mall of America after it hired a black man to play Santa, because the character was always "white" in the "Bible":Like all items published by Politicops, (and sister sites Religionlo, Politicalo, and Politcops), the article's first paragraph referenced a real debate over the Mall of America's black Santa. However, Palin made no such remarks about a boycott, and the tacked on fabrication is standard for this particular family of fake news outlets. Articles from Newslo and its sister sites typically begin with a paragraph of fact-based information before launching into fabricated details.Newslo's fake news sites often display under the lesser-known Politicops domain on social media, but all include a button allowing readers to "show facts" or "hide facts" to highlight the truthful material in the article.Prior Newslo fabrications included claims that Chris Christie thought that a female Viagra would cause an uptick in "lesbianism" (and separately that he voted down a gender pay parity bill for Bible-based reasons), an Alabama politician tried to implement saliva-based "hunger tests" for food stamp recipients, Ted Cruz affirmed he'd run as a Democrat if something affected Hillary Clinton's candidacy, Mike Pence said that if abortion was legal in cases of rape women would try to "get raped" in order to obtain an abortion, the father of Brock Turner lamented the absence of punishment for the victim in his son's sexual assault case, and that televangelist Pat Robertson claimed David Bowie did not die, but was kidnapped by demons.

FMD_train_167

Did Crisis Actors Make a Propaganda Video in Ukraine?

02/28/2022

In February 2022, Russian propagandists went into overdrive in an attempt to justify their unprovoked attack on Ukraine. They claimed that Ukraine was run by Nazis (false), that Ukraine was committing genocide on its own people (false), and that Russia was attacking biolabs to prevent "COVID-2" (false). false false false Another line of disinformation attempted to downplay violence in Ukraine. This was largely done when people posted photographs and videos that supposedly showed "crisis actors," or people pretending to be in crisis there. A video of a camera crew filming people running through the street, for example, was posted to Bitchute (a video platform known for hosting far-right, conspiratorial, and hate content) along with the title "How to Make a Propaganda Video?" and the hashtags #UKRAINE #RUSSIA and #PROPAGANDA. posted photographs and videos that supposedly showed "crisis actors a video platform known for hosting far-right, conspiratorial, and hate content Rumble, another video platform known for hosting far-right content, posted this video under the caption "completely choreographed Fake News In Ukraine - Still Believe Mockingbird Media?" On "TheGreatAwakening," a conspiratorial website dedicated to the debunked QAnon conspiracy theory, this video was shared with the caption "Lights, Camera, Action!" and on Twitter it was shared as if it showed "crisis actors" filmed "in the middle of the 'massive and scary' Russian invasion." This video was not filmed in the Ukraine, and it was not filmed in 2022. This video was originally posted in 2013 and shows a behind-the-scenes look at the making of "Invasion Planet Earth" (originally titled "Kaleidoscope Man"), a sci-fi adventure movie about an alien invasion. The above-displayed scene was filmed in Birmingham, England, not Ukraine. Invasion Planet Earth Kaleidoscope Man Another version of this rumor hinged on the claim that the news media was sharing an abbreviated version of this video that only showed people running (with no hints of a camera crew) in order to exaggerate the state of affairs in Ukraine. By claiming that a miscaptioned version of this footage was being shared by the news media, social media users could claim that this was an example of "globalist propaganda." But we have not found a single post from a genuine news outlet that presented this footage as if it were real. The "news outlet" included the above-displayed screenshot is a weeks-old Twitter account, @mightyfarooz200, that has no apparent connections to any credible news outlet. This video was not filmed in Ukraine during Russia's invasion of the country. It does not show crisis actors and it was not shared as if it were genuine footage of Russia's invasion as reported by credible media news outlets. However, this is still a good example of propaganda, just not in the way that it's being presented online. This footage was widely circulated on social media with one of two claims: First, that it showed Ukrainian "crisis actors" filming a propaganda video, and second that the news media was using miscaptioned footage to misrepresent the situation in Ukraine. Neither of these claims were true. Our search for postings of this video turned up dozens of far-right accounts sharing this video as if it showed crisis actors, and practically zero postings of people sharing this video as if it showed a genuine attack. In other words, this video was widely shared by those attempting to downplay the violence by Russians in Ukraine, not by those attempting to exaggerate it. British Council Film: Kaleidoscope Man. https://film-directory.britishcouncil.org/kaleidoscope-man. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Hinton, Alexander. Putins Claims That Ukraine Is Committing Genocide Are Baseless, but Not Unprecedented. The Conversation, https://theconversation.com/putins-claims-that-ukraine-is-committing-genocide-are-baseless-but-not-unprecedented-177511. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Putin Using False Nazi Narrative to Justify Russias Attack on Ukraine, Experts Say. NBC News, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/putin-claims-denazification-justify-russias-attack-ukraine-experts-say-rcna17537. Accessed 28 Feb. 2022. Ukraine Invasion: Misleading Claims Continue to Go Viral. BBC News, 28 Feb. 2022. www.bbc.com, https://www.bbc.com/news/60554910.

False

In February 2022, Russian propagandists went into overdrive in an attempt to justify their unprovoked attack on Ukraine. They claimed that Ukraine was run by Nazis (false), that Ukraine was committing genocide on its own people (false), and that Russia was attacking biolabs to prevent "COVID-2" (false).Another line of disinformation attempted to downplay violence in Ukraine. This was largely done when people posted photographs and videos that supposedly showed "crisis actors," or people pretending to be in crisis there. A video of a camera crew filming people running through the street, for example, was posted to Bitchute (a video platform known for hosting far-right, conspiratorial, and hate content) along with the title "How to Make a Propaganda Video?" and the hashtags #UKRAINE #RUSSIA and #PROPAGANDA.This video was originally posted in 2013 and shows a behind-the-scenes look at the making of "Invasion Planet Earth" (originally titled "Kaleidoscope Man"), a sci-fi adventure movie about an alien invasion. The above-displayed scene was filmed in Birmingham, England, not Ukraine.

FMD_train_1791

Did Obama Give Syria $195 Million to Celebrate a Muslim Holiday?

12/17/2015

On 15 December 2015, the disreputable American News website recycled an old article claiming that President Obama had given $195 million to Syria in honor of a Muslim holiday. The Facebook post shown above redirected users to an article originally published by American News a year and a half earlier, on 6 July 2014. According to recent reports, President Obama has decided to give 195 million taxpayer dollars to Syria to celebrate the Muslim holiday Eid al-Fitr. Once again, it appears Obama is unilaterally deciding what is best for the United States. What do you think? Are there better ways to spend American tax dollars? Although the American News article accurately quoted an official White House press release, its reposting in December 2015 deliberately misled readers into believing the release's contents were current news. In fact, President Obama's announcement that the United States would be providing additional humanitarian aid to Syria was issued over two years earlier, on 7 August 2013. The announcement stated, "Michelle and I send our warmest greetings to Muslims celebrating Eid al-Fitr here in the United States and around the world. During the past month, Muslims have honored their faith through prayer and service, fasting, and time spent with loved ones. At this year's White House Iftar, I was proud to spend time with some of the many American Muslims whose contributions enrich our democracy and strengthen our economy. Many of us have had the opportunity to break fast with our Muslim friends and colleagues—a tradition that reminds us to be grateful for our blessings and to show compassion to the less fortunate among us, including millions of Syrians who spent Ramadan displaced from their homes, their families, and their loved ones. To help the many Syrians in need this Eid al-Fitr, the United States is providing an additional $195 million in food aid and other humanitarian aid, bringing our humanitarian contribution to the Syrian people to over $1 billion since the crisis began. For millions of Americans, Eid is part of a great tapestry of America's many traditions, and I wish all Muslims a blessed and joyful celebration." It should also be noted that the United States did not give $195 million in cash to Syria simply to allow them to celebrate a Muslim holiday. The $195 million came in the form of food and other humanitarian aid and was intended to provide needed relief to citizens experiencing hardship and suffering in that war-torn country; the announcement was merely timely in that it coincided with the beginning of the important Muslim holiday of Eid al-Fitr that year.

NEI

Although the American News article accurately quoted an official White House press release, its reposting in December 2015 deliberately misled readers into believing the release's contents were current news. In fact President Obama's announcement that the United States would be providing additional humanitarian aid to Syria has been issued over two years earlier, on 7 August 2013:

FMD_train_918

Congressional Budget Office says 8 (percent) unemployment till 2014!

08/31/2011

In an Aug. 24, 2011,Twitter post, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said of the Congressional Budget Office: CBO says 8 (percent) unemployment till 2014!Well assume the Texas Republican doesnt consider this fabulous news, though the predicted rate would be about a percentage point lower than the July 2011 national jobless rate of 9.1 percent,as reported bythe U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.A reminder: The unemployment rate is a measure of the number of jobless people who are available for work and are actively seeking jobs, expressed as a percentage of the labor force.Did Cornyn recap accurately?The nonpartisan CBOssummaryof its latest economic projections says that with modest economic growth expected for the next few years, the office expects the jobless rate to fall to 8.9 percent the fourth quarter of this year and to 8.5 percent the fourth quarter of 2012. And indeed, the report says, the rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014.The nations gross domestic product grew 1 percent the second quarter of this year after growing .4 percent in the years first three months, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysisreported in August. According to the CBO forecast, the economy will grow slowly in coming years as the federal deficit shrinks, though the prediction about the deficit assumes, among other things, that Congress will not extend all the tax cuts launched under President George W. Bush and temporarily extended under President Barack Obama.In its full report, the CBO projects the annual unemployment rate to average 8.7 percent in 2012 and 2013, which would be an improvement on the 2010 and 2009 averages of 9.6 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively, but would be worse than the 2008 average of 5.8 percent,according tothe Bureau of Labor Statistics.CBO forecasts the unemployment rate falling to an average of 5.4 percent in 2016 and 5.2 percent in 2017 through 2021, which would be the lowest rate since 2007, when the average was 4.6 percent. The report says the projected 5.2 percent rate in those years would match its expected natural unemployment rate for the period.Economists talk about a natural unemployment rate because even in a strong, healthy economy there is always some degree of employee turnover as businesses adopt new technologies and make other staff changes, and as a certain percentage of workers, for various professional and personal reasons, look for new jobs.Things are unsettled now, the CBO report says, with weakness in the demand for goods and services being the principal restraint on hiring, but structural impediments in the labor market such as a mismatch between the requirements of existing job openings and the characteristics of job seekers (including their skills and geographic location) appear to be hindering hiring as well.Other measures also show a great deal of weakness in the labor market, the report says. The number of unemployed workers per job opening averaged about 4 throughout the first half of 2011, down from an average of slightly over 6 in 2009 but still much higher than it was before the recession. In addition, the number of people who are employed part time but want full-time work averaged about 8.5 million in the first half of 2011, slightly below the number in the previous two years but still nearly double the pre-recession figure.The report continues: Likewise, the share of unemployed people who have been out of work for a long time is unusually high. On average, 44 percent of workers who were unemployed in the first half of 2011 had been jobless for more than six months. Moreover, in mid-2011, 31 percent of unemployed workers had been jobless for at least a year. Those rates of long-term unemployment are unprecedented in the post-World War II era.Were not judging here whos responsible for the nations unemployment troubles, but how accurately Cornyn echoed the CBOs projection. His statement rates True.

True

In an Aug. 24, 2011,Twitter post, U.S. Sen. John Cornyn said of the Congressional Budget Office: CBO says 8 (percent) unemployment till 2014!Well assume the Texas Republican doesnt consider this fabulous news, though the predicted rate would be about a percentage point lower than the July 2011 national jobless rate of 9.1 percent,as reported bythe U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.A reminder: The unemployment rate is a measure of the number of jobless people who are available for work and are actively seeking jobs, expressed as a percentage of the labor force.Did Cornyn recap accurately?The nonpartisan CBOssummaryof its latest economic projections says that with modest economic growth expected for the next few years, the office expects the jobless rate to fall to 8.9 percent the fourth quarter of this year and to 8.5 percent the fourth quarter of 2012. And indeed, the report says, the rate will remain above 8 percent until 2014.The nations gross domestic product grew 1 percent the second quarter of this year after growing .4 percent in the years first three months, the U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysisreported in August. According to the CBO forecast, the economy will grow slowly in coming years as the federal deficit shrinks, though the prediction about the deficit assumes, among other things, that Congress will not extend all the tax cuts launched under President George W. Bush and temporarily extended under President Barack Obama.In its full report, the CBO projects the annual unemployment rate to average 8.7 percent in 2012 and 2013, which would be an improvement on the 2010 and 2009 averages of 9.6 percent and 9.3 percent, respectively, but would be worse than the 2008 average of 5.8 percent,according tothe Bureau of Labor Statistics.CBO forecasts the unemployment rate falling to an average of 5.4 percent in 2016 and 5.2 percent in 2017 through 2021, which would be the lowest rate since 2007, when the average was 4.6 percent. The report says the projected 5.2 percent rate in those years would match its expected natural unemployment rate for the period.Economists talk about a natural unemployment rate because even in a strong, healthy economy there is always some degree of employee turnover as businesses adopt new technologies and make other staff changes, and as a certain percentage of workers, for various professional and personal reasons, look for new jobs.Things are unsettled now, the CBO report says, with weakness in the demand for goods and services being the principal restraint on hiring, but structural impediments in the labor market such as a mismatch between the requirements of existing job openings and the characteristics of job seekers (including their skills and geographic location) appear to be hindering hiring as well.Other measures also show a great deal of weakness in the labor market, the report says. The number of unemployed workers per job opening averaged about 4 throughout the first half of 2011, down from an average of slightly over 6 in 2009 but still much higher than it was before the recession. In addition, the number of people who are employed part time but want full-time work averaged about 8.5 million in the first half of 2011, slightly below the number in the previous two years but still nearly double the pre-recession figure.The report continues: Likewise, the share of unemployed people who have been out of work for a long time is unusually high. On average, 44 percent of workers who were unemployed in the first half of 2011 had been jobless for more than six months. Moreover, in mid-2011, 31 percent of unemployed workers had been jobless for at least a year. Those rates of long-term unemployment are unprecedented in the post-World War II era.Were not judging here whos responsible for the nations unemployment troubles, but how accurately Cornyn echoed the CBOs projection. His statement rates True.

FMD_train_1014

Says David Perdue hasn't held a single public town hall meeting in six years and sells four meetings a year and a retreat on a private island for a $7,500 corporate PAC check.

12/11/2020

In a debate where he appeared alongside an empty lectern, Democrat Jon Ossoff attacked his absent Republican opponent, saying Georgia Sen. David Perdue hasn't been accessible to his constituents and has sold his time for donations from political action committees. "Perdue hasn't held a single public town hall meeting in six years," Ossoff declared on Dec. 6. "He openly sells access for corporate PAC checks. He sells four meetings a year and a retreat on a private island for a $7,500 corporate PAC check." Perdue's campaign manager has indicated that the first-term senator won't participate in any debates with Ossoff ahead of their Jan. 5 runoff election. Along with another Georgia runoff on the same day, which pits Democrat Raphael Warnock against GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the race will determine which party controls the Senate. As for town halls, Perdue's Senate office did not cite any that he has held. Ossoff's claim about donor access refers to a solicitation for a Perdue campaign fundraising event. That invitation shows that political action committees contributing $7,500 annually (not a single contribution) would qualify to attend quarterly events and an annual Sea Island retreat. A town hall, as it is typically understood, is a meeting that is publicized in advance and open to the public, in which the elected representative answers questions from members of the public that are not screened. Traditionally, these have been in-person events, but particularly since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, more have been held online. We found no evidence that Perdue has held such a meeting, and his office didn't offer any. Ossoff has been making the town hall claim about Perdue since at least August, and we found several media reports about Perdue not holding public forums. In May, the student-run Harvard Political Review reported that Perdue had not held any town halls since he took office in January 2015. Atlanta TV station WGCL reported in August about Perdue's lack of accessibility to the public and noted the Harvard story. In September, Atlanta TV station WXIA referred in a news report to a 2017 Perdue event that drew protesters. It didn't describe the event but said Perdue hasn't held a town hall since then. Perdue's staff did not respond to those reporters for those stories. However, in 2017, Perdue told reporters he had held impromptu town hall meetings while making an unannounced visit to the state Capitol and that he prefers holding meetings with individuals or small groups. The nonprofit Town Hall Project told PolitiFact that Perdue has not held a public town hall since it began tracking town halls held by members of Congress in January 2017. The project uses staff and volunteer researchers to track lawmakers' public schedules, subscribe to their newsletters, follow them on social media, and visit their websites, said executive director Nathan Williams. According to the Town Hall Project, a meeting is a town hall if it is open to the public and the press; announced with at least 24 hours' notice; and has at least 30 minutes of open questions and answers; that is, the questions are not screened. Perdue's Senate office told PolitiFact that he regularly participates in public events and local visits to hear directly from constituents. The office did not cite any town hall event, either in person or online, but said Perdue has held constituent conference calls since taking office, including weekly calls during the COVID-19 pandemic. It's not clear whether those calls were publicized in advance or whether constituents were allowed to ask Perdue questions that weren't screened by staff. His office didn't comment on those issues. To support the second part of Ossoff's claim, his campaign cited a two-part tweet from Dave Levinthal, who was then an editor-at-large for the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics and is now a Washington correspondent for Business Insider. The June 5, 2019, tweet showed images of an invitation to a Perdue fundraising event the same day that was hosted by Perdue Victory, a joint fundraising committee of Perdue's campaign and One Georgia PAC, which is affiliated with Perdue. The invitation solicited annual donations at three levels from individuals and political action committees for the Boardroom, an effort helping Perdue's 2020 re-election run. At the top level, called Chairman, a PAC donating $7,500 per year or an individual donating $5,400 per year would be invited to an annual retreat at Sea Island, a private community on St. Simons Island in Georgia, including a reception at Perdue's residence; invitations to special events throughout the year; quarterly events; and an end-of-year thank you. Images of a fundraising solicitation to support Sen. David Perdue's reelection campaign were posted on Twitter by journalist Dave Levinthal. The invitation did not specify whether Perdue would be at all the events. Perdue's office did not comment on the fundraising solicitation, and his campaign did not respond to requests for comment. WXIA-TV reported in February 2020 that on Feb. 13, 2019, Perdue attended a meeting of his Boardroom donors and did not attend a Senate hearing held at the same time by two Armed Services subcommittees on substandard military housing at Georgia's Fort Benning and other facilities nationwide. Perdue is a member of one of the subcommittees. Perdue's office released a statement saying the senator has taken strong action to improve military housing at bases in Georgia but didn't address his scheduling on Feb. 13, 2019, according to the news report. Ossoff said Perdue hasn't held a single public town hall meeting in six years and sells four meetings a year and a retreat on a private island for a $7,500 corporate PAC check. Perdue's office said the senator has held weekly conference calls with constituents. However, we found no evidence that Perdue has held a town hall—a meeting publicized in advance, open to the public, and allowing the public to ask him unscreened questions—since he took office in January 2015. An invitation to a 2019 campaign fundraising event for Perdue offered political action committees that made an annual donation of $7,500 access to an annual retreat at Perdue's residence in a private community on St. Simons Island, Ga., as well as access to quarterly meetings and other events, though it was not clear whether Perdue himself would attend each event. We rate the statement Mostly True.

True

Perdue hasn't held a single public town hall meeting in six years, OssoffdeclaredDec. 6. He openly sells access for corporate PAC checks. He sells four meetings a year and a retreat on a private island for a $7,500 corporate PAC check.Perdues campaign manager hasindicatedthe first-term senator wont do any debates with Ossoff ahead of their Jan. 5 runoff election. Along with another Georgia runoff the same day, which pits Democrat Raphael Warnock against GOP Sen. Kelly Loeffler, the race will determine which party controls the Senate.Ossoffs claim about donor access refers to asolicitationfor a Perdue campaign fundraising event. That invitation shows political action committees that contributed $7,500 annually (not a single contribution) would qualify to attend quarterly events and an annual sea island retreat.In May, the student-run Harvard Political Reviewreportedthat Perdue had not held any town halls since he took office in January 2015. Atlanta TV station WGCLreportedin August about Perdues lack of accessibility to the public, and noted the Harvard story. In September, Atlanta TV station WXIA referred in a newsreportto a 2017 Perdue event that drew protesters. It didnt describe the event, but said Perdue hasnt held a town hall since then.Perdues staff did not respond to those reporters for those stories. But in 2017, Perduetoldreportershe had held impromptu town hall meetings while making an unannounced visit to the state Capitol, and that he prefers holding meetings with individuals or small groups.Accordingto the Town Hall Project, a meeting is a town hall if it is open to the public and the press; announced with at least 24 hours notice; and has at least 30 minutes of open questions and answers; that is, the questions are not screened.Perdue's Senate office told PolitiFact that he regularly participates in public events and local visits to hear directly from constituents. The office did not cite any town hall event, either in person or online, but said Perdue has held constituent conference calls since taking office, includingweeklycalls during the COVID-19 pandemic.To back the second part of Ossoffs claim, his campaign cited atwo-parttweet from Dave Levinthal, who was then an editor-at-large for the nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics and is now a Washington correspondent for Business Insider.The June 5, 2019, tweet showed images of an invitation to a Perdue fundraising event the same day that was hosted byPerdueVictory, a joint fundraising committee of Perdues campaign and One GeorgiaPAC, which is affiliated with Perdue.The invitation solicited annual donations at three levels from individuals and political action committees for the Boardroom, an effort helping Perdues 2020 re-election run. At the top level, called Chairman, a PAC donating $7,500 per year or an individual donating $5,400 per year would be invited to an annual retreat at Sea Island, aprivatecommunity on St. Simons Island in Georgia, including a reception at Perduesresidence; invitations to special events throughout the year; quarterly events; and an end-of-year thank you.WXIA-TVreportedin February 2020 that on Feb. 13, 2019, Perdue attended a meeting of his Boardroom donors, and did not attend a Senatehearingheld at the same time by two Armed Services subcommittees on substandard military housing at Georgias Fort Benning and other facilities nationwide. Perdue is a member of one of the subcommittees.This fact check is available at IFCNs 2020 US Elections FactChat #Chatbot on WhatsApp. Clickhere, for more.

FMD_train_308

Says the Texas unemployment rate has even grown more than the nation's as a whole.

10/07/2010

In its latest print advertisement, placed Oct. 5 in 41 newspapers statewide, the Back to Basics PAC angles to turn Gov. Rick Perry's favorite selling point against him: the Texas economy. Perry often touts job gains on his watch; in a recent TV spot, titled Texas: Open for Business, he says Texas has gained more jobs than all other states combined from January 2001 to June 2010, a statement we recently ratedTrue. Yet the latest Back to Basics ad finds fault, pointing out that Perry fails to acknowledge that lawmakers balanced the latest state budget partly by accepting billions of dollars in federal stimulus money. The ad then lists some economic changes that have occurred since the governor wrote President Barack Obama in February 2009 assuring him that the state would accept the federal dollars. Punch line: Perry won't tell you that the Texas unemployment rate has even grown more than the nations as a whole. Really?On its website, Back to Basics points to statistics from the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics showing that the Texas unemployment rate between February 2009 and August 2010 rose from 6.8 percent to 8.3 percent, up 1.5 percentage points. During the same period, the U.S. unemployment rate grew from 8.2 percent to 9.6 percent, up 1.4 percentage points. The number of jobless people in Texas grew by 204,400 during that time an increase of 26 percent. Meanwhile, the nation as a whole experienced a 17 percent increase. We checked with Cheryl Abbot, a bureau economist in Dallas, who told us that the figures used by Back to Basics were correct. She also told us that there were no statistical or logical problems with comparing the increase in the state's unemployment rate with that of the United States. I would probably phrase (the statement) more correctly as 'the unemployment rate has increased at a faster rate in Texas,' but saying that it's grown more, there's probably nothing wrong with putting it that way, Abbot said. We asked Abbot how best to interpret the 0.1 percentage point gap between the changes in the national and state unemployment rates. She said there is very little difference between 1.5 and 1.4 in this context, noting that one interpretation of the numbers could be that during those 18 months, Texas' job performance was about the same as the nation's. That's part of Back to Basics' point, said Cliff Walker, the group's director. Those numbers show Perry isn't as good as he says he is, he said. Next, we looked into whether changing the time period for comparing unemployment rates also changes the result. We tried five different starting points -- January 2009, December 2008, November 2008, January 2007 and December 2000 -- and in all those cases, the Texas unemployment rate increased by the same number of percentage points as the national rate, or less. (December 2000 was when Perry entered the governor's office, and January 2007 was the beginning of his current term.) When we asked Walker why Back to Basics started its time period of comparison with the month of Perry's letter to Obama, he told us that the group is trying to draw attention to the fact that Perry took federal stimulus dollars a fact that many Texans, more than a year and a half later, still do not know. Our take: Back to Basics' statement accurately recaps a specific time period the 18 months following Perry's acceptance of federal stimulus aid for Texas in February 2009 that shows unemployment rising faster in Texas than the nation as a whole. As our analysis shows, though, lengthening the time period often yields a different result, with unemployment in Texas rising more slowly than the nation. We rate the statement Mostly True.

True

Perry often touts job gains on his watch; in a recent TV spot, titled Texas: Open for Business, he says Texas has gained more jobs than all other states combined from January 2001 to June 2010, a statement we recently ratedTrue. Yet the latest Back to Basics ad finds fault, pointing out that Perry fails to acknowledge that lawmakers balanced the latest state budget partly by accepting billions of dollars in federal stimulus money.

FMD_train_1049

Is this roster of modifications made to Social Security throughout the years authentic?

10/29/2005

The Social Security system has been a contentious political issue ever since it was proposed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt and implemented in 1935. Arguments regarding how the system should be used, administered, and funded, and even whether it should exist at all, have been the subject of debate for many decades. For example, Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social Security (FICA) Program. He promised: 1.) That participation in the Program would be completely voluntary, 2.) That the participants would only have to pay 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual incomes into the Program, 3.) That the money the participants elected to put into the Program would be deductible from their income for tax purposes each year, 4.) That the money the participants put into the independent "Trust Fund" rather than into the General operating fund would only be used to fund the Social Security Retirement Program and no other government program, and 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees would never be taxed as income. Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month, only to find that we are being taxed on 85% of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away," you may be interested in the following: Q: Which political party took Social Security from the independent "Trust" fund and put it into the General fund so that Congress could spend it? A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding? A: The Democratic Party. Q: Which political party started taxing Social Security annuities? A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the "tie-breaking" deciding vote as President of the Senate while he was Vice President of the U.S. Q: Which political party decided to start giving annuity payments to immigrants? A: That's right! Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party. Immigrants moved into this country and, at age 65, began to receive SSI Social Security payments! The Democratic Party gave these payments to them, even though they never paid a dime into it! Then, after doing all this lying and thieving and

NEI

There was no provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 (nor has there ever been any provision) for the payment of Social Security payroll taxes (now commonly known as FICA, from an acronym for the Federal Insurance Contributions Act) to be voluntary. Since the inception of the Social Security program, the law has required that payroll taxes for persons working at jobs covered by Social Security "shall be collected by the employer of the taxpayer by deducting the amount of the tax from the wages as and when paid."It is true that Social Security provisions originally applied only to "workers in commerce and industry (except railroads) under age 65 in the continental United States, Alaska and Hawaii, and on American vessels," and thus those who worked in fields not designated as "commerce and industry" (e.g., government workers, farm workers, doctors, lawyers) neither paid into the Social Security fund nor received benefits from it. Nearly all of those exemptions have been since phased out:Social Security taxes were never limited to the first $1,400 of annual income, nor was there any provision in the Social Security Act of 1935 to permanently fix the tax rate at 1%. The Social Security Act of 1935 set the original rate at 1% of the first $3,000 of annual income, with provisions to gradually increase that rate to 3% over the next twelve years:However, whether the Social Security Trust Fund can truly be said to be "independent" is problematic. The Social Security Act specifies that the monies in the fund may only "be invested in securities backed by the full faith and credit of the Federal government," such as treasury bills, treasury notes, and treasury bonds, as well as special issue bonds. So, essentially, the government can "invest" Social Security funds by lending them to itself, then spending that money on programs not related to Social Security (e.g., defense, foreign aid, education). The government "pays back" this money when the Social Security program redeems the bonds, but critics of the program contend Social Security will eventually fall into deficit by 2018, and the Treasury won't have the necessary cash on hand to redeem the bonds and pay back the fund. As the Social Security and Medicare Trustees themselves noted in their 2005 Annual Report:A somewhat dated but detailed article about how the Social Security trust funds are invested can be found here.It is true that Social Security benefits were not originally considered taxable income. However, that status was not due to any promise or act on the part of President Roosevelt, nor was it specified in the Social Security Act (or any other law); it was the result of a series of rulings by the Treasury Department in 1938 and 1941 that excluded Social Security benefits from federal income taxation. Those rulings were overriden by amendments to the Social Security act enacted in 1983.As noted above, the monies paid into the Social Security trust have never been "put into the general fund." The requirements for how the Social Security Trust Fund is to be financed and invested have not changed since the fund's inception in 1939. The reference to Lyndon Johnson indicates that someone was probably confused by a change implemented at the end of the Johnson administration (1969) that altered how the fund was accounted for in the federal budget but did not change the actual operations of the fund itself:As noted above, Social Security withholding has never been deductible from income for tax purposes. The original Social Security Act of 1935 specifically stated that monies paid into Social Security via payroll taxes were not to be allowed as income tax deductions.Responsibility for this change cannot fairly be assigned to either political party. The idea originated with a proposal issued by the bipartisan Greenspan Commission, which had been created by President Ronald Reagan, a Republican. The amendments were passed by a House of Representatives in which the Democrats held a clear majority of the seats (296-166), but the proposed amendments received "Yea" votes from members of both parties, and they were signed into law by President Reagan.This change to Social Security was but one element of the massive Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (OBRA) introduced in Congress in 1993. OBRA was barely passed by a 218-216 vote in the House of Representatives, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it (although 41 Democrats voted against it). Likewise, the Senate vote on OBRA was deadlocked at 50-50 (again, with not a single Republican voting in favor of it, although 6 Democrats voted against it) until Vice-President Al Gore (a Democrat) cast the deciding "Yea" vote. The bill was signed into law by President Bill Clinton (also a Democrat).No one whether he be a citizen, immigrant, or illegal alien is eligible to collect Social Security benefits unless he (or someone else, such as a parent or spouse) has paid into the system. Someone has confused Social Security itself with Supplemental Security Income (SSI) the latter is a federal welfare program "designed to help aged, blind, and disabled people, who have little or no income" by providing "cash to meet basic needs for food, clothing, and shelter." Immigrants can qualify for SSI benefits under certain conditions, but SSI is financed by general revenues and not Social Security taxes. SSI was not enacted by the administration of President Jimmy Carter (a Democrat); it was created and signed into law in 1972, during the administration of President Richard Nixon (a Republican).

FMD_train_1101

Permanent Closure at Walt Disney World Due to Hurricane Irma?

09/14/2017

On 13 September 2017, an article claiming that Disney World was permanently closing the Fort Wilderness Campground due to damage sustained from Hurricane Irma was posted to the prank news web site BreakingNews247.com: article prank Walt Disney has officially announced that they will be permanently closing Fort Wilderness Campgrounds due to damage exceeding over $1 Million from one estimate. This article, along with everything else published on BreakingNews247.com, is fabricated. "Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook:This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information.The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke":Despite the article's deletion, however, the rumor continued to circulate as web sites like ViralDisney.net republished near verbatim copies of the story. These web sites are unaffiliated with Walt Disney World, which has indicated in public statements that Fort Wilderness will soon reopen. "Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook: Prank This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information. The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke": message ViralDisney.net The Florida theme park did sustain some damage during Hurricane Irma and the Fort Wilderness campground was temporarily closed. A message on the official Disney World web site explained that the campground will likely reopen by the end of September 2017: damage message explained All Disney Resorts have begun normal operation, with the exception of Fort Wilderness Campground and Disney's Saratoga Springs Treehouse Villas.We anticipate that Disneys Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground will reopen next week, but it remains closed at this time as we clean up the property following the storm. Disney's Wilderness Lodge remains open. We anticipate that Disneys Fort Wilderness Resort & Campground will reopen next week, but it remains closed at this time as we clean up the property following the storm. Disney's Wilderness Lodge remains open.To allow Disneys Fort Wilderness to prepare the property after Hurricane Irma, all shows at The Hoop Dee Doo Musical Revue and Mickeys Backyard BBQ will be canceled up to and including To allow Disneys Fort Wilderness to prepare the property after Hurricane Irma, all shows at The Hoop Dee Doo Musical Revue and Mickeys Backyard BBQ will be canceled up to and including Tuesday September 19th. Any existing reservations will be automatically canceled and refunded. Fox News. "Disney World Photos Show Hurricane Irma's Damage to Parks." 13 September 2017.

False

On 13 September 2017, an article claiming that Disney World was permanently closing the Fort Wilderness Campground due to damage sustained from Hurricane Irma was posted to the prank news web site BreakingNews247.com:"Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook:This website is an entertainment website, news are created by users. These are humourous news, fantasy, fictional, that should not be seriously taken or as a source of information.The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke":Despite the article's deletion, however, the rumor continued to circulate as web sites like ViralDisney.net republished near verbatim copies of the story. These web sites are unaffiliated with Walt Disney World, which has indicated in public statements that Fort Wilderness will soon reopen. "Prank" web sites like this one allows users to generate their own fake news stories to share with their friends on Facebook:The creator of this particular story must have felt some remorse after posting it, as the article was later removed and replaced with a message explaining that it had been a "bad joke":The Florida theme park did sustain some damage during Hurricane Irma and the Fort Wilderness campground was temporarily closed. A message on the official Disney World web site explained that the campground will likely reopen by the end of September 2017:

FMD_train_719

Might the ongoing Supreme Court case lead to a more powerful presidential pardon?

10/03/2018

This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented. decided On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama. Terance Gamble During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on: interpreted Gamble has been in federal prison since entering a guilty plea on 18 October 2016 that allowed him to appeal his case. In June 2018, the Supreme Court agreed to hear his argument that he has been unconstitutionally punished multiple times for the same crime. While the case is about the constitutionality of a man being charged twice for the same gun possession incident in a narrow sense, the case more broadly has the potential to significantly alter 150 years of Supreme Court precedent. Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.) federal level, This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued: United States v. Lanza We have here two sovereignties, deriving power from different sources, capable of dealing with the same subject matter within the same territory. Each may, without interference by the other, enact laws to secure prohibition, with the limitation that no legislation can give validity to acts prohibited by the amendment. Each government, in determining what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity, is exercising its own sovereignty, not that of the other. The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing. filing The government argues in this case that the precedent is well-established through myriad Supreme Court cases and consistent with the Founding Fathers' vision of state and federal government duality: The dual-sovereignty principle has been long held, and consistently endorsed by this Court, which has recognized its soundness as a matter of [p]recedent, experience, and reason alike, The Court explained the roots of the principle more than 150 years ago. And in 1959, the Court described a challenge to the dual-sovereignty doctrine as not a new question, having been invoked and rejected in over twenty cases" ... Each sovereign is entitled to exercis[e] its own sovereignty to determin[e] what shall be an offense against its peace and dignity and prosecute the offender without interference by the other. Under petitioners interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, one sovereigns efforts (successful or not) to enforce its own laws would vitiate the other sovereigns similar law-enforcement prerogatives. But that cannot be squared with the Constitutions bedrock structure of governance. In this case, Gamble has explicitly asked the Supreme Court to rule on a single specific question: Whether the Court should overrule the separate sovereigns exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause. The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense. wrote The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power: report The Gamble case may nevertheless have significant collateral legal effects ... A win for Gamble could also indirectly strengthen the Presidents pardon power, by precluding a state from prosecuting an already-pardoned defendant who has gone to trial on an overlapping offense. Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations: strong view day after While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power: reported Within the context of the Mueller probe, legal observers have seen the dual-sovereignty doctrine as a check on President Donald Trumps power: It could discourage him from trying to shut down the Mueller investigation or pardon anyone caught up in the probe, because the pardon wouldnt be applied to state charges. Under settled law, if Trump were to pardon his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, for example -- he was convicted in federal court on eight counts of tax and bank fraud -- both New York and Virginia state prosecutors could still charge him for any crimes that violated their respective laws ... If the dual-sovereignty doctrine were tossed ... then Trumps pardon could theoretically protect Manafort from state action. If Trump were to shut down the investigation or pardon his associates, the escape hatch, then, is for cases to be farmed out or picked up by state-level attorneys general, who cannot be shut down by Trump and who generally -- but with some existing limits --can charge state crimes even after a federal pardon, explained Elie Honig, a former assistant U.S. attorney in New Jersey. The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context. Amicus Curiae Oral arguments for the case have not been scheduled but will occur during this Supreme Court term. If confirmed, Judge Kavanaugh could become a deciding vote in the case. Supreme Court of the United States. Brief for Petitioner (No. 17-646)." 24 October 2017. Cornell Legal Information Institute. Double Jeopardy." Accessed 3 October 2018. U.S. Department of Justice. 9-2.031 - Dual and Successive Prosecution Policy ("Petite Policy")." Accessed 3 October 2018. Supreme Court of the United States. United States v. Lanza, 260 U.S. 377." 11 December 1922. Supreme Court of the United States. Brief for the United States in Opposition (No. 17-646)." 16 January 2018. Adler, Adam J. "Dual Sovereignty, Due Process, and Duplicative Punishment: A New Solution to an Old Problem." Yale Law Journal. November 2014. Hsin, S. "When Does Double Prosecution Count as Double Jeopardy?" Congressional Research Service. 16 August 2018. Kirby, Jen. "7 Legal Experts on How Kavanaugh Views Executive Power And What It Could Mean for Mueller." Vox. 11 July 2018. Vazquez, Maegan. "Supreme Court Agrees to Hear 'Double Jeopardy' Case in the Fall." CNN. 22 June 2018. Bertrand, Natasha. "A Supreme Court Case Could Liberate Trump to Pardon His Associates." The Atlantic. 25 September 2018 Supreme Court of the United States. Brief of Senator Orrin Hatch as Amicus Curiae in Support of Petitioner (No. 17-646)." 11 September 2018. Updated [17 June 2019]: Added note that the Supreme Court ruled on this case.

True

This article discussed the potential implications of a case that was, at the time of writing, undecided by the Supreme Court. On 17 June 2019 the Supreme Court decided that case, rejecting arguments that could have resulted in a stronger presidential pardon. Far from Kavanaugh's being a deciding vote on the case, the court ruled 7-2 against the notion that Federal and State prosecution for the same crime violates the so-called double jeopardy clause of the Constitution. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.On 29 November 2015, a motorist named Terance Gamble, who had been convicted of second degree robbery seven years earlier, was pulled over by an Alabama police officer because of a faulty headlight on his vehicle. Upon searching the car, the officer found a handgun, among other items. It is illegal under both Alabama law and United States law for convicted felons to possess firearms, and Gamble was eventually sentenced to one year in prison on that charge by the state of Alabama.During Gamble's prosecution under Alabama law for possession of a firearm as a felon, the Federal Government also charged him with the same crime. Gambles lawyers argued that this second conviction was a violation of the U.S. Constitutions ban on double jeopardy, which is intended to protect people from being prosecuted for the same crime more than once. The double jeopardy clause is found in Fifth Amendment to the U.S. constitution, which states (in part) that "No person shall ... be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb. Specifically, the clause has been interpreted to be a prohibition on:Since the 1850s, the Supreme Court has allowed for one explicit exception to the Constitutions double jeopardy protections: cases of dual sovereignty (or separate sovereigns) which stem from view that the federal government and state governments are distinct entities with occasionally overlapping jurisdictions. (Exceptions to this exception exist which seek to limit double prosecutions at the federal level, but as this case shows they do not always have that effect.)This separate sovereigns exception to double jeopardy, though built on several previous rulings, was made most explicit in a 1920s bootlegging case, United States v. Lanza, which allowed a man to be charged with bootlegging crimes by both the state of Washington and the federal government. With respect to that case, Chief Justice William Howard Taft argued:The separate sovereigns exemption has for much of its history been a controversial precedent which critics maintain is not rooted in the original text of the Constitution but is instead cobbled together from different partially relevant Supreme Court decisions -- decisions rooted in a time when the federal government was less powerful and whose questions never directly sought to address the explicit matter of double punishment for the same crime in state and federal jurisdictions. This argument is reflected in Gambles filing.The reason Gamble v. United States is generating buzz from people other than constitutional law scholars is that the separate sovereigns exception also prevents President Trump from pardoning people for state crimes. Under current Supreme Court precedent, a presidential pardon of an individual does not prevent that individual from being prosecuted for the same or similar crimes under state law. Under the dual sovereignty doctrine, Adam J. Adler wrote in the Yale Law Review, as long as two offenses are defined by different jurisdictions, they cannot constitute the same offense.The Congressional Research Service issued an August 2018 report on the potential ramifications of the case, and this report included a discussion of its possible effect on the presidential pardon power:Some pundits have speculated that the reason why certain politicians seem to be in a rush to seat Judge Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court is that is that he has a notably strong view of presidential powers and therefore would be a vote in favor of Gamble and for an expansion of presidential pardon powers -- and the Supreme Court announced they would be hearing this case the day after Justice Kennedys retirement. This temporal proximity has prompted some commenters to opine that the rush might be motivated by a desire to limit the presidents legal liability in the Russia probe and other investigations:While we cannot speculate on the motives of politicians who are supporting Judge Kavanaugh's nomination, The Atlantic reported that prominent political legal scholars agree in a general sense with the view of this cases having importance with regard to President Trumps pardon power:The Atlantic also reported that at least one member of the Senate Judiciary Committee who approved Kavanaugh for a floor vote before the full Senate, Orrin Hatch, has publicly weighed in on the topic (unmotivated, he says, by the implications for the pardon power), filing an Amicus Curiae brief in favor of Gamble which argued that the pervasive federalization of criminal law to cover conduct that traditionally was prosecuted and punished by the states, and that falls within the states core legislative interests, threatens to undermine the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause unless the dual sovereignty doctrine is overruled in this context.

FMD_train_1901

Young Protester Stares Down Police

09/15/2016

As thousands of protesters continued to gather in Cannon Ball, North Dakota, in September 2016 to protest the construction of the Dakota Access oil pipeline, social media users widely circulated a photograph purportedly showing a young protester staring down a police officer garbed in full riot gear: North Dakota. The United States of America. 2016. You need to know what is happening. The tribes are not speaking up for only themselves, but for all people who rely on clean water to live. You do drink water, don't you? This little girl is standing up for you. Although this photograph is real, it was not taken in North Dakota nor does it have anything to do with protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline. This image originated with the Reuters news service and captured a moment from a September 2016 political demonstration in Chile: Reuters A demonstrator looks at a riot policeman during a protest marking the country's 1973 military coup in Santiago, Chile September 12, 2016 01:00pm EDT Facebook user "Bc EchoHawk," who originally shared the above-displayed photograph along with the claim that it was taken in North Dakota, later updated his Facebook post with correct information about the photograph's origins: CORRECTION: This photo does not come from the Sacred Stone Camp, as I believed, knowing the ND Governor had sent National Guard troops to the area. It was taken from a protest earlier this week in Chile. So, while this young girl is not in ND, there ARE children there who clearly understand what is happening, and continue to fight for clean water and treaty rights with their families. I stand firmly behind my original words, and if inadvertently using an inaccurate photo allowed those words to be seen and shared by over 50K people, then more power to FB. Why doesn't anybody share my cat memes like this? While "Bc EchoHawk" admitted the mistake, this photograph is still being widely shared with along with the incorrect claim that it was taken in North Dakota and not Chile. North Dakota

False

Although this photograph is real, it was not taken in North Dakota nor does it have anything to do with protests over the Dakota Access Pipeline. This image originated with the Reuters news service and captured a moment from a September 2016 political demonstration in Chile:While "Bc EchoHawk" admitted the mistake, this photograph is still being widely shared with along with the incorrect claim that it was taken in North Dakota and not Chile.

FMD_train_1871

Debunking Trump Tweets: Biden's 143K Vote 'Dump' in Wisconsin

11/18/2020

In the continuous stream of tweets alleging election fraud issued from the Twitter account of President Donald Trump in mid-November 2020, one tweet posted in the evening of Nov. 18 claimed that victorious Democratic presidential candidate had received an "unbelievable" "dump of 143,379 votes at 3:42AM, when they learned he was losing badly": It is true that Biden picked up about 149,000 votes in Wisconsin around 3:30 AM in the early morning hours following the election, thereby erasing a lead Trump had held in the in-progress vote tally up to that point: However, no fraudulent activity of furtive "dump" of ballots was behind this phenomenon. By law, Wisconsin was not allowed to begin tabulating absentee ballots (no matter how early they were sent in) until 7:00 AM on Election Day. Biden's vote count took a big jump (while Trump's increased much more modestly) around the time in question because that was when Milwaukee County finished and reported the tabulation of its approximately 170,000 absentee ballots. That occurrence was doubly favorable for Biden, both because Democrats were far more likely to vote via absentee ballots, and because Milwaukee County is the most populous county in Wisconsin and is an overwhelmingly Democratic area: far more likely The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the bulge in Biden votes, and the reasons behind it, at the time it took place: reported Biden overtook Trump in the early morning hours when Milwaukee reported its roughly 170,000 absentee votes, which were overwhelmingly Democratic. Then early morning returns from Green Bay and Kenosha on Wednesday added to his slender lead. Trump had nurtured a lead of more than 100,000 votes before those returns came in. By the morning after the election, even Trump had recognized (if not accepted) the phenomenon of mail-in ballots in most states being heavily Democratic, in large part because he discouraged his supporters from using that method of voting: In fact, more than two months before the election, NPR had observed that "President Trump's campaign to discourage the use of mail-in voting this fall is raising concerns among Republicans, particularly in the key swing state of Wisconsin, that his efforts could hinder their party on election night." observed As of this writing, Biden has won Wisconsin (and its 10 electoral votes) by just over 20,000 votes out of more than 3.2M ballots cast:

False

However, no fraudulent activity of furtive "dump" of ballots was behind this phenomenon. By law, Wisconsin was not allowed to begin tabulating absentee ballots (no matter how early they were sent in) until 7:00 AM on Election Day. Biden's vote count took a big jump (while Trump's increased much more modestly) around the time in question because that was when Milwaukee County finished and reported the tabulation of its approximately 170,000 absentee ballots. That occurrence was doubly favorable for Biden, both because Democrats were far more likely to vote via absentee ballots, and because Milwaukee County is the most populous county in Wisconsin and is an overwhelmingly Democratic area:The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on the bulge in Biden votes, and the reasons behind it, at the time it took place:In fact, more than two months before the election, NPR had observed that "President Trump's campaign to discourage the use of mail-in voting this fall is raising concerns among Republicans, particularly in the key swing state of Wisconsin, that his efforts could hinder their party on election night."

FMD_train_375

Does a Photo Show Ice Cube, 50 Cent Wearing Trump Hats?

10/20/2020

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but misinformation continues to spread. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. On Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats. This is not a genuine photograph of 50 Cent and Ice Cube wearing "Trump 2020" hats; it is a doctored image created from a photograph of Ice Cube and 50 Cent at a BIG3 basketball game in Las Vegas, Nevada, in 2017. In the original image, Ice Cube is wearing a hat with the BIG3 logo, while 50 Cent is wearing a hat with a New York Yankees logo. Ice Cube shared the original photograph on his Twitter page in July 2020, along with a birthday message for his friend 50 Cent. Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption: "LAS VEGAS, NV - AUGUST 26: BIG3 founder and recording artist Ice Cube and Curtis '50 Cent' Jackson attend the BIG3 three-on-three basketball league championship game on August 26, 2017, in Las Vegas, Nevada. (Photo by Sean M. Haffey/BIG3/Getty Images)." Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter, and Trump has since deleted his tweet. Although this image is fake, both musicians have indeed aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube stated that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump, along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year. This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at a rate of more than 62%. Interestingly, Ice Cube and 50 Cent appear to be aligning themselves with Trump for polar opposite reasons. Ice Cube, for instance, said that he was willing to work with either presidential campaign to improve the lives of Black Americans and to "close the enormous wealth gap." 50 Cent, on the other hand, stated he didn't care that "Trump doesn't like Black people" and that he was endorsing the incumbent because his opponent's tax plan would increase taxes on wealthy Americans.

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 Oct. 20, 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump's son Eric Trump posted an image to social media that supposedly showed musicians Ice Cube and Curtis "50 Cent" Jackson wearing "Trump 2020" hats:Getty Images has archived a few other photographs taken at this event. The image at the top of this article, for example, carries the caption:Ice Cube confirmed that the image was fake in a message posted to Twitter and Trump has since deleted his tweet.Although this image is fake, both of these musicians have truly aligned themselves, at least in part, with the Trump administration. While Ice Cube has not endorsed Trump for 2020, he did work with the president's administration to create a "Contract With Black America." Ice Cube said that he would "advise anyone on the planet who has the power to help Black Americans close the enormous wealth gap."50 Cent's support for Trump was more explicit. On Oct. 19, 50 Cent took to Instagram and shared a message endorsing Trump along with a screenshot from CNBC's "Power Lunch" concerning a report that Biden's tax plan would raise the tax rate to as much as 62% on Americans who make more than $400,000 a year:This screenshot comes from a segment of "Power Lunch" that aired on Oct. 19. During this segment, CNBC's Robert Frank explained how people earning more than $400,000 a year could pay income taxes at rate of more than 62%. Here's a video of Frank on another CNBC show, "Squawk Box," talking about Biden's tax plan:

FMD_train_544

Could This Internet Joke Show Racial Prejudice 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 said, 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. 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_1879

Of all the money we spend on education, less than 32 percent goes to teachers.

07/27/2017

Dan Patrick framed his case for ordering Texas schools to shift money toward higher teacher salaries by suggesting that less than a third of school spending currently reaches teachers' pocketbooks. The Republican lieutenant governor, addressing reporters before the July 2017 start of a special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, said, "Of all the money we spend on education, less than 32 percent goes to teachers." By email, Patrick's spokesman Alejandro Garcia offered as the basis of Patrick's claim a state publication presenting statistics such as student enrollment. We did not find information in the document that supported what Patrick said. When we reached out to the Texas Education Agency, spokeswoman Lauren Callahan responded by pointing out state-posted figures for the 2015-16 school year, the latest year of audited spending totals. That year, according to the agency, the state government recorded receipts of $58,796,907,294 related to public schools from state, local, federal, and other revenue sources. The same year, according to another agency web page, 347,328 teachers were paid combined base salaries of $18,023,516,741, averaging $51,892. That $18 billion breaks out to 31 percent of the nearly $59 billion in total receipts. Some additional money went to teachers, including nearly $1 million in stipends for those who oversee extracurricular activities, Callahan told us. The resulting total teacher compensation of $19,005,561,634 divides out to 32 percent of the total education receipts. Additional money goes into other salaries. According to the agency, Texas schools in 2015-16 paid more than $24 billion to 68,699 teacher support staff, broken out by TEA into more than 20 job categories, including counselors, school nurses, and athletic trainers, plus 237,460 administrative, professional, paraprofessional, and auxiliary staff, with spending on all employee salaries accounting for more than 70 percent of school-related receipts. Keep in mind, though, Patrick singled out the share of all spending solely devoted to teacher pay. When we asked finance experts who advocate for school districts if the equation based on TEA data holds up, we heard back that the math works, but the total-spending figure includes spending that deserves an asterisk. In emails, Joe Wisnoski, a former TEA finance administrator who advises and lobbies for school districts, and Tom Canby of the Texas Association of School Business Officials each suggested it is unfair to compare the $18 billion spent on teacher salaries to total receipts, which count money that does not contribute to school employee salaries. Each expert wrote that it is more appropriate to compare spending on teacher salaries to operating expenditures, meaning not judging the teacher salaries against any money districts raise in bond proceeds or what is spent on capital projects such as buildings or to pay off debt. Wisnoski noted that none of those funding streams could be diverted to salaries anyway. According to the TEA's posted figures for 2015-16, all funds operating expenditures for schools totaled nearly $49.5 billion, of which spending on teacher salaries accounted for 36.4 percent, Wisnoski said, and we confirmed. "There are lots of ways to include or exclude things in the world of school district finances," Wisnoski said, "and what is most appropriate somewhat depends on the person making the point and the specific point being made." Canby called the equation that led us to 32 percent of all spending going to teacher salaries a misleading apples-to-oranges calculation. He said he would gauge the share of spending on teacher salaries starting from 2016 actual expenditure totals he said he obtained from the state's Public Education Information Management System. Those figures suggest that teacher salaries cost $19,131,375,774, with benefits adding $3,429,356,293. The resulting $22,560,732,067 accounted for 47.7 percent of $47,303,105,584 in operating expenditures statewide, Canby noted. Canby also emailed us a web link to a July 2017 commentary by TASBO's executive director, Tracy Ginsburg, stating that the group had been unable to verify numbers aired by Patrick indicating that of $163,000 spent per classroom, $52,000 is paid to classroom teachers. Ginsburg encouraged readers to consider a June 2017 report by Moak, Casey & Associates, the lobbying and consulting firm whose associates include Wisnoski. That report states that in 2015-16, Texas school employee salaries and benefits absorbed 79 percent of $46.4 billion spent on basic educational costs. The share of that spending on teacher salaries alone does not appear in the report, which states that instruction accounted for 61 percent of basic costs, taking into account some 333,000 teachers plus 63,700 education aides. The instruction entry in the report states: "Also included here are the salaries and benefits costs of 4,500 librarians, as well as the books and other materials that can be found in Texas school libraries." The cost of instructional materials and staff development is also included in this category as instructional costs. Our ruling: Patrick said, "Of all the money we spend on education, less than 32 percent goes to teachers." This percentage, we found, aligns with the simple comparison of total teacher salaries to all funds spent on public schools. However, it is worth clarifying that not all funds can be diverted to teacher salaries. You could also say that close to half of available school spending in 2015-16 went to teacher salaries. We rate the statement Mostly True.

True

The Republican lieutenant governor,addressing reportersbefore the July 2017 start of a special legislative session called by Gov. Greg Abbott, said: Of all the money we spend on education, less than 32 percent goes to teachers.By email, Patrick spokesman Alejandro Garcia offered as the basis of Patricks claim astate publicationpresenting statistics such as student enrollment. We did not spot information in the document speaking to what Patrick said.That year, according to the agency, state governmentrecorded receipts of $58,796,907,294related to public schools from state, local, federal and other revenue sources. The same year,according toanother agency web page, 347,328 teachers were paid combined base salaries of $18,023,516,741, averaging $51,892.In emails,Joe Wisnoski, a former TEA finance administrator who advises and lobbies for school districts, andTom Canbyof the Texas Association of School Business Officials each suggested its unfair to compare the $18 billion spent on teacher salaries to total receipts, which count money that doesnt play into school employee salaries, each expert wrote.Canby called the equation that got us to 32 percent of all spending going to teacher salaries a misleading apples divided by oranges calculation. He said he would gauge the share of spending on teacher salaries, starting from 2016actual expenditure totalshe said he fetched from the statesPublic Education Information Management System. Those figures suggest that teacher salaries cost $19,131,375,774 with benefits adding $3,429,356,293. The resulting $22,560,732,067 accounted for 47.7 percent of $47,303,105,584 in operating expenditures statewide, Canby noted.Canby also emailed us a web link to a July 2017commentaryby TASBOs executive director, Tracy Ginsburg, stating that the group had been unable to verify numbers aired by Patrick indicating that of $163,000 spent per classroom, $52,000 is paid to classroom teachers.Ginsburg encouraged readers to consider a June 2017reportby Moak, Casey & Associates, the lobbying and consulting firm whose associates include Wisnoski. That report says that in 2015-16, Texas school employee salaries and benefits absorbed 79 percent of $46.4 billion spent on basic educational costs.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_1378

SCAM: E-ZPass Bill Overdue Notice

07/10/2014

Phishing bait: E-mailed messages pose as overdue notifications for E-ZPass bills. SCAM Example: [Collected via e-mail, July 2014] I just received word from my dad about a virus that I didn't see listed on your site: ------------------ Judy got an e-mail with the subject line "Payment for driving on a toll road." She forwarded it to me. The message stated, "You are overdue for paying your E-ZPass bill. Click here to download your invoice." I should have known better than to do it, but I did. It downloaded an "exe" file to my computer. Like a fool, I actually instructed my computer to open it. I received a warning message saying, "The publisher cannot be verified. Are you sure you want to open this file?" At that point, I realized that I had narrowly escaped infecting my computer with some kind of malware, virus, identity theft, or something of that nature. I permanently deleted the exe file and any e-mail messages containing the link to it. Origins: In July 2014, Internet users were spammed with emails appearing to originate from the E-ZPass Service Center (an electronic toll-collection system used on most tolled roads, tunnels, and bridges in the eastern half of the United States) with subject lines such as "In arrears for driving on toll road." The text of such messages informed recipients that "You have not paid for driving on a toll road" and invited them to click on a link to download an invoice and "service your debt in the shortest possible time." These messages were not legitimate; they were part of a phishing scheme intended to lure recipients into clicking links or opening attachments and downloading malware onto their computers. The New York State Thruway Authority has posted a warning on its site advising customers that the messages are not authorized communications from E-ZPass, the New York State Thruway Authority, or any other toll collection agency and should not be opened or responded to: warning The New York State Thruway Authority is warning motorists about a scam involving fake e-mails. The authority says it recently learned of an email phishing scam that appears to be an attempt to collect unpaid tolls. An example of the email is as follows: "Dear customer, You have not paid for driving on a toll road. This invoice is sent repeatedly; please service your debt in the shortest possible time." The authority is warning that this is not an authorized communication from E-ZPass, the New York State Thruway Authority, or any other toll agency associated with E-ZPass. People are advised not to open or respond to such a message. The safest thing to do is to delete the email. The E-ZPass Service Center does not send out email invoices for payment. If you owe money for using E-ZPass on a toll facility, the E-ZPass Service Center will send an invoice through the US Postal Service for payment. If you have any questions about the validity of any message received from E-ZPass, contact the E-ZPass New York Customer Service Center at 800-333-8655. Last updated: 10 July 2014.

False

These messages were not legitimate; they were part of a phishing scheme intended to lure recipients into clicking links or opening attachments and downloading malware onto their computers. The New York State Thruway Authority has posted a warning on its site advising customers that the messages are not authorized communications from E-ZPass, the New York State Thruway Authority, or any other toll collection agency and should not be opened or responded to:

FMD_train_595

Did a 1912 Newspaper Article Predict Global Warming?

10/18/2016

On 11 October 2016, the Facebook page Sustainable Business Network NZ posted a photograph of a clipping from the 14 August 1912 edition of the Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette that included a brief item headlined "Coal Consumption Affecting Climate." The item stated, "The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries." The article's authenticity is supported by the fact that it can be found in the digital archives of the National Library of New Zealand. Further attesting to its authenticity (and perhaps its role as a bit of stock news used to fill space) is that an identical story had appeared in an Australian newspaper a month prior, in the 17 July 1912 issue of The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, as found in the digital archives of the National Library of Australia. An even deeper dive reveals that the text of this news item has its origins in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, where it appeared as a caption in an article titled "Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate: What Scientists Predict for the Future." Some online commenters expressed skepticism over the notion that such a clear understanding of the mechanisms relating to greenhouse gases existed in 1912, or that anyone back then would have suggested humans could play a role in altering their concentration. In fact, the timing of these news clips is consistent with the historical record. The first person to use the term "greenhouse gases" was a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In a paper published that year, he made an early calculation of how much warmer the Earth was thanks to the energy-trapping nature of some of the gases in the atmosphere. Even at this early stage, he understood that humans had the potential to play a significant role in changing the concentration of at least one of those gases, carbon dioxide (then referred to as carbonic acid). The world's present production of coal reaches, in round numbers, 500 million tons per annum, or 1 ton per km of the Earth's surface. Transformed into carbonic acid, this quantity would correspond to about a thousandth part of the carbonic acid in the atmosphere. Though he didn't explicitly say in that paper that human activity could warm the planet, Arrhenius would go on to make that argument in later works. A 2008 tribute to Arrhenius published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences stated that his ideas about coal and climate were popular and well known in his day but fell out of favor for a while after his death in 1927. While Arrhenius's prediction of warming received great public interest, this typically waned over time but was revived as an important global mechanism by the great atmospheric physicist Carl Gustaf Rossby, who initiated atmospheric CO2 measurements in Sweden in the 1950s. In this sense, the content and date of the newspaper clips in question are consistent with both what was known to scientists about greenhouse gases at the time and what the general public was interested in.

True

On 11 October 2016, the Facebook page Sustainable Business Network NZ posted a photograph of a clipping from the 14 August 1912 edition of the Rodney and Otamatea Times, Waitemata and Kaipara Gazette that included a brief item headlined Coal Consumption Affecting Climate:This articles authenticity is supported by the fact it can be found in the digital archives of the National Library of New Zealand.Further attesting to its authenticity (and perhaps its role as a bit of stock news used to fill space) is that an identical story had appeared in an Australian newspaper a month prior, in the 17 July 1912, issue of The Braidwood Dispatch and Mining Journal, as found in the digital archives of the National Library of Australia.An even deeper dive reveals that the text of this news item has its origins in the March 1912 issue of Popular Mechanics, where it appeared as a caption in an article titled "Remarkable Weather of 1911: The Effect of the Combustion of Coal on the Climate What Scientists Predict for the Future":The first person to use the term greenhouse gases was a Swedish scientist named Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In a paper published that year, he made an early calculation of how much warmer the Earth was thanks to the energy-trapping nature of some of the gases in the atmosphere. Even at this early stage, he understood that humans had the potential to play a significant role in changing the concentration of at least one of those gases, carbon dioxide (carbonic acid back then):Though he didnt explicitly say in that paper that human activity could warm the planet, Arrhenius would go on to make that argument in later works. A 2008 tribute to Arrhenius published by the Royal Swedish Academy of Engineering Sciences stated that his ideas about coal and climate were popular and well known in his day but fell out of favor for a while after his death in 1927:

FMD_train_1584

Costco 'Free Grocery Box' Scam

11/30/2020

On Nov. 29, 2020, a Facebook page purporting to represent Costco, a chain of membership-only warehouse stores, posted a message offering a free grocery box to anyone who shared and commented on their post. The message was allegedly written by Costco's CEO, Craig Jelinek (whose name was misspelled "Jelinekand" in this scam Facebook post due to a typo): "My name is Craig Jelinekand, and I'm the CEO of Costco Inc. To celebrate our 35th birthday, every single person who shares and comments in the next 24 hours will get one of these Christmas Food Boxes delivered straight to their door on Monday, November 30th. Each food box contains groceries worth $250 and a $35 Costco voucher. Make sure you validate your entry. Limit one food box per person." This message was not posted on Costco's official page, nor was it written by the company's CEO. This is a scam shared by an imposter Facebook page. A nearly identical version of this scam (with Aldi swapped in for Costco) was also shared on social media in November 2020. Costco has not commented on this scam offer yet, but Aldi posted a message on Facebook alerting their customers about the scam: "Hey ALDI fans! Looks like another Facebook scam is making its way around. We can confirm it is a scam, and the page has no affiliation with ALDI. We're sorry for any confusion this may have caused! We have been working with Facebook since yesterday to get the page taken down, but we'd love your help! Please share this post to help us spread the word, and always be sure to look for the blue check mark by our name for authenticity!" One indication that this "free Costco grocery box" offer is a scam is that it did not originate on Costco's Facebook page. Rather, this message was shared to a page called "Costco US," whereas Costco's real page is called "Costco." Here's a screenshot of the real page (left) that has a verified symbol and the fake page (right), which does not. Social media users could have also clicked the "Page Transparency" button on Facebook to uncover more details about this fake page. In this case, the page transparency button reveals that the scam "Costco US" page was created on Nov. 29, the same day that this "free grocery box" scam started to circulate. It would be unusual, to say the least, for Costco to start an entirely new page (one that its shoppers do not know about) to host a giveaway. A reverse image search on the included photos also shows that this page is not legitimate. The image supposedly showing "free Costco grocery boxes" is actually several years old and did not originally display boxes adorned with the "Costco" logo. The original image shows plain cardboard boxes. The scammers inserted a digital version of the Costco logo to make it seem like the store was genuinely giving away boxes of groceries. A similar scam involving the grocery store Aldi also used a doctored version of this image. The best way to tell that this offer is a scam, however, is to ask yourself a simple question: Does it seem too good to be true? This type of scam is commonplace on social media. A fraudulent page (in this case, a fake Costco page) posts an especially appealing offer (free grocery boxes) and then asks social media users to like, share, or comment on the post. This ensures that the scam message will spread to as many people as possible, giving the fraudsters a better chance of success. "Success," in this case, means tricking people into parting with personal information, such as email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers. 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 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 sometimes even 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.

False

The message was purportedly written by Costco's CEO Craig Jelinek (whose name was misspelled "Jelinekand" in this scam Facebook post due to a typo):Costco has not commented on this scam offer yet, but Aldi posted a message to Facebook alerting their customers about the scam:One indication that this "free Costco grocery box" offer is a scam is that it did not originate on Costco's Facebook page. Rather, this message was shared to a page called "Costco US," whereas Costco's real page is called "Costco." Here's a screenshot of the real page (left) that has a verified symbol and the fake page (right), which does not. A reverse image search on the included photos also shows that this page is not on the up-and-up. The image supposedly showing "free Costco grocery boxes" is actually several years old and did not originally show boxes adorned with the "Costco" logo. The original image (below) shows plain cardboard boxes. The scammers inserted a digital version of the Costco logo in order to make it seem like the store was truly giving away boxes of groceries. A similar scam involving the grocery store Aldi also used a doctored version of this image:The Better Business Bureau offers consumers several general tips to avoid getting scammed:

FMD_train_1519

Did Facebook executive Jeff Rothschild express the need for a third world war?

05/18/2018

Jeffrey J. Rothschild, an American businessman now in his mid-sixties, is a successful engineer, entrepreneur, and former Facebook vice president whose net worth, according to Forbes, exceeds $3 billion. He is also, if online conspiracy theorists are to be believed, a thought leader in a CIA-backed New World Order plot to exterminate most of the world's population and enslave the survivors. In Internet memes circulating since 2013, Rothschild is quoted as saying a third world war will be required to accomplish these goals. Much as it may disappoint anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, however, Forbes states that despite his great personal wealth, Jeff Rothschild isn't related to the esteemed banking family whose patriarch was Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany. Jeff Rothschild's father, William B. Rothschild, inherited a rubber import business from his father, Marcus Rothschild, whose name appears nowhere in the Mayer Rothschild family tree. Although Jeff Rothschild did speak at a conference of Chinese and American entrepreneurs and investors in January 2013 (at which the above photo was taken), the event took place in Santa Clara, California (not China), and there is no record of him saying anything about a New World Order, a third world war, or a globalized feudal system. Nor have we been able to find such references in any other public statements made by Jeff Rothschild over the past two decades. This utter lack of evidence hasn't stopped anyone from promulgating these falsehoods, however. We came across a similar quote shared by someone using the Twitter handle "truther monkey" in 2014: "Jeff Rothschild gave this speech recently in China to some of the world's richest people ... please share .. pic.twitter.com/dPCqyyo8KT." Though their precise points of origin are uncertain, we traced both quotes to a 3 August 2013 post on a now-defunct "underground anarchist" blog called Anarchadia. Crucially, the anonymous author of the post cited no sources authenticating the statements. "Where is the evidence he actually said these things?" asked someone in the comments section of the page. "Where is the evidence he didn't?" was the response—a low evidentiary bar indeed. As is the case in so much conspiratorial discourse, the very existence of the quotes, if real, would be self-contradictory anyway. By definition, the Illuminati conduct their business in absolute secrecy, yet we find them, time and time again (going all the way back to the fictitious 1903 Protocols of the Elders of Zion), allegedly revealing their entire subversive agenda in public. If that's as secretive as they can be, we have nothing to fear from our supposed Illuminati overlords.

False

Jeffrey J. Rothschild, an American businessman now in his mid-sixties, is a successful engineer, entrepreneur, and former Facebook vice president whose net worth, according to Forbes, exceeds $3 billion.He is also, if online conspiracy theorists are to be believed, a thought leader in a CIA-backed New World Order plot to exterminate most of the world's population and enslave the survivors. In Internet memes making the rounds since 2013, Rothschild is quoted as saying a third world war will be required to accomplish these goals:Much as it may disappoint anti-Semitic conspiracy theorists, however, Forbes says that despite his great personal wealth Jeff Rothschild isn't related to the august banking family whose patriarch was Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812) of Frankfurt, Germany. Jeff Rothschild's father, William B. Rothschild, inherited a rubber import business from his father, Marcus Rothschild, whose name appears nowhere in the Mayer Rothschild family tree.And although Jeff Rothschild did speak at a conference of Chinese and American entrepreneurs and investors in January 2013 (at which the above photo was taken), the event took place in Santa Clara, California (not China), and there is no record of him saying anything about a New World Order, a third world war, or a globalized feudal system. Nor have we been able to find such references in any other public statements uttered by Jeff Rothschild over the past two decades.This utter lack of evidence hasn't stopped anyone from promulgating these falsehoods, however. We ran across a similar quote shared by someone using the Twitter handle "truther monkey" in 2014:Jeff Rothschild gave this speech recently in China to some of the world's richest people ... please share .. pic.twitter.com/dPCqyyo8KT truther monkey (@Thedyer1971) April 4, 2014Though their precise points of origin are uncertain, we traced both quotes to a 3 August 2013 post on a now-defunct "underground anarchist" blog called Anarchadia. Crucially, the anonymous author of the post cited no sources authenticating the statements.As is the case in so much conspiracist discourse, the very existence of the quotes, if real, would be self-contradictory anyway. By definition, the Illuminati conduct their business in absolute secrecy, yet we find them, time and time again (going all the way back to the fictitious 1903 Protocols of the Elders of Zion), allegedly revealing their entire subversive agenda in public.

FMD_train_118

The Dead Cat in the Package

07/28/1999

A package containing a dead cat is stolen by a thief who thinks she's making off with something of value. Two elderly women went shopping. As they came out of the mall, they spotted a dead cat in the parking lot. Being cat lovers, they couldn't bear the thought of leaving the poor dead kitty there. They decided to take it home and give it a decent burial. They went back into the store and got some Dillard's shopping bags. They wrapped the dead kitty in one sack and then put it in another Dillard's sack, hoping to contain the odor. It was lunchtime, so their next stop was a local restaurant. As it was a warm day, they were reluctant to leave the dead kitty closed up in the car. So, they placed the Dillard's sack beside the car and went in to eat. As it happened, their car was visible through the window where they were sitting in the restaurant. They watched a lady walk by their car, stop, go back, pick up their Dillard's sack, and walk into the restaurant. This lady was then seated next to our two elderly cat lovers. The lady ordered her lunch, and curiosity getting the better of her, she opened the Dillard's sack. She peeked inside, screamed, and in trying to get out of her chair, fell and hit her head. An ambulance was called to take the poor woman away. As they were taking her away, one of our elderly cat lovers placed the Dillard's sack on the gurney, saying, "I think this belongs to her..." Recent versions of this story often place it at the West Edmonton Mall in Canada or the Mall of America in the United States. In those incarnations, the action supposedly takes place in the parking lot, where a Good Samaritan places the deceased beastie in a shopping bag, then retreats to her own car to watch so she'll be on hand to give an explanation when the cat's owner returns. Another woman comes along, filches the bag, and gets it back to her own car, where she opens it and is seen fainting dead away once she catches sight of her ill-gotten gains. In some tellings, an ambulance is called, and the still-unconscious woman is placed on a stretcher with what the emergency workers believe to be the poor dear's bag thoughtfully placed on her chest. Now I'm going to ruin your day by telling you it never happened. Not only that, dead-cats-in-package stories are as old as the hills; one even turned up in a 1904 New York Times article. Another standard version has an old woman taking her dear, departed Fluffy across town on a bus so she can bury her in a lovely park. Either thieves brazenly steal her package, or her parcel somehow gets innocently switched with someone else's, and she arrives at her destination not with Fluffy but instead with a nice ham all wrapped up. It's told both ways. In a closely related version, the woman takes the subway with her soon-to-be-buried cat, but this time the beastie is in a suitcase. While the woman is struggling up the steep stairs, a nice young boy offers to carry the suitcase up for her. She gratefully hands over the bag, and he hurries off with dead Fluffy. In this version, you're left to imagine the lad's reaction when he pries it open. The following tale of one man's efforts to track down this story comes from David Jacobson's 1948 book, The Affairs of Dame Rumor: Through the association of ideas, a given concept turns into a dramatic event, such as the perennial wonder of the Dead-Cat-Come-to-Justice. A New York City newspaperman once decided to track down this tale. He had first heard it from a friend. Claiming to believe the story himself, the friend told the newspaperman about a woman who had placed her pet cat in a veterinary hospital where it later died. As she wished to give the animal a decent burial, the woman called for her pet's remains, and neatly wrapped in a box, she received the dead cat. Along the way home, the woman stopped to do some shopping at Stern's department store on 42nd Street. While selecting her purchases, the woman placed the box on a nearby counter. But suddenly she looked around for it, and the box was gone. Stern's detectives began searching the store for the packaged body of the cat. Within a short time, they found it. The opened box, the deceased animal leering out of it, was on the floor of a telephone booth. Alongside lay the body of a woman, immediately identified as a well-known shoplifter who had been under the scrutiny of this and other stores for several months. The shoplifter had apparently taken her loot to the telephone booth, opened it, caught a glimpse of the dead cat, and dropped to the floor dead of a heart attack resulting from fright. His friend, the newspaperman learned, got the rumor about this macabre justice from two actors who lived in the neighboring apartment. The two knew the full truth of the story, according to the friend. Yet, interviewing the actors, the journalist found they had received the tale from a Christian Science practitioner, a man whose word they did not doubt as he had told them the rumor as gospel. The Christian Science practitioner willingly repeated this gospel before the newspaperman, adding that he had heard it from a woman. She was the friend of the dead cat's owner. She would give him the names of all the people involved. And, to be sure, this woman was full of the dead-cat wonder, according to the journalist. Not that she actually knew the name of the animal's owner. But she had heard the rumor from her son-in-law, who knew all about it. "He turned out to know everything about it," the newspaperman reported. "He had heard the story firsthand from a passenger on a commuter train whose aunt knew the lady who owned the dead cat." Still curious about the rumor, the newspaperman went to Stern's department store. There, a somewhat firm, if not angered, chief detective swiftly assured him that nothing of the sort had happened. Neither had the local police station any record of either a dead shoplifter or a dead cat having been reported. While the newspaperman was playing ring-around-a-rosy with the Dead-Cat-Come-to-Justice rumor, it was having a gay time of its own. It was flying from table to table, from office to office on its cross-country journey. Readjusted to fit the local situation in Chicago, the rumor was an eye-opener months later when it became current talk. In California, the following year, people gasped in amazement as they heard about the fate of the shoplifter in the local department store. And at least one national magazine published the rumor as one of its truth-is-stranger-than-fiction features for the edification of the wonder-lovers among its loyal subscribers.

True

Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Choking Doberman. New York: W. W. Norton, 1984. ISBN 0-393-30321-7 (pp. 216-219). Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Mexican Pet. New York: W. W. Norton, 1986. ISBN 0-393-30542-2 (pp. 31-34). Brunvand, Jan Harold. Too Good To Be . New York: W. W. Norton, 1999. ISBN 0-393-04734-2 (pp. 63-65, 74-76). Brunvand, Jan Harold. The Vanishing Hitchhiker. New York: W. W. Norton, 1981. ISBN 0-393-95169-3 (pp. 103-112). de Vos, Gail. Tales, Rumors and Gossip. Englewood: Libraries Unlimited, 1996. ISBN 1-56308-190-3 (pp. 158, 164-169). Dorson, Richard. American Folklore. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press, 1959 (pp. 253-254). Jacobson, David J. The Affairs of Dame Rumor. New York: Rinehart & Company, 1948 (pp. 44-46). Scott, Bill. Pelicans & Chihuahuas and Other Urban Legends. St. Lucia, Queensland: Univ. of Queensland, 1996. ISBN 0-7022-2774-9 (p. 64). Smith, Paul. The Book of Nastier Legends. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986. ISBN 0-7102-0573-2 (p. 88). Holt, David and Bill Mooney. Spiders in the Hairdo. Little Rock: August House, 1999. ISBN 0-87483-525-9 (pp. 92-93). Schwartz, Alvin. More Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark. New York: HarperCollins, 1984. ISBN 0-397-32081-7 (pp. 52-53). The Big Book of Urban Legends. New York: Paradox Press, 1994. ISBN 1-56389-165-4 (pp. 42-43).

FMD_train_784

Texas has outstripped the national poverty rate since at least 1959.

10/12/2015

Texas remains home to a greater share of people in poverty than the nation as a whole,Bee Moorheadwrote in a September 2015,oped articlein theAustin American-Statesman. Not news? Well, Moorhead, executive director of the Texas Interfaith Center for Public Policy/Texas Impact, also wrote that according to U.S. Census Bureau figures, Texas once again outstripped the national poverty rate in 2014, as we have done since at least 1959. Thats 56 years--a long time to be better at poverty. We wondered. To our inquiry, Moorhead emailed us a spreadsheet,drawing on bureau figures, indicating that in select years, or each decade from 1959 through 2009, more Texans lived below the federal poverty level, by percentage, than Americans as a whole. According to the figures, which we confirmed on the bureau website, the share of Texans in poverty was greatest in 1959 31.7 percent, 9 percentage points greater than the 22.1 percent of Americans nationally in poverty. In the selected years, the smallest gap occurred in 1979 when 14.7 percent of Texans lived in poverty compared with 13.1 percent of Americans overall, according to the figures. Moorhead said she separately drew the 2014 Texas poverty rate (16.4 percent) from a chartfetchablefrom a bureau web page last updated Sept. 16, 2015. Nationally in 2014, the bureauannounced,the poverty rate was 14.8 percent, meaning 46.7 million people lived in poverty. Moorhead also pointed out abureau websiteenabling comparisons of poverty in a state to the nation each decade from 1960 through 2010, leading us to develop this Texas-U.S. comparison: SOURCE:Web page,Poverty Rates by County, 1960-2010,U.S. Census Bureau (accessed Oct. 7, 2015) Measuring poverty Through the bureau, the federal government has estimated residents living in poverty for more than 50 years, initially from a U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate of how much income that families under economic stress needed in order to put food on the table. How the government defines poverty has changed a bit over the years, but generally,the bureau says, it uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The thresholds dont vary by location, the bureau says, but are updated for inflation. The poverty definition rolls in income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps), the bureau says. Each years national poverty estimates derive from the bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, which surveys about 100,000 households a year, asking about income from more than 50 sources,according tothe bureau. An experts look Moorhead did not delve into poverty rates for every year from 1959 on, so we asked Daniel Dillon of the University of Texas Child and Family Research Partnership for a look. Drawing from CPS data, heput together a chartsuggesting the Texas poverty rate exceeded the national rate each year from 1959 through 2014. But Dillon and bureau spokesman Robert Bernstein told us that comparative year-by-year figures start only in 1980. Since 1980, Dillon summed up, the Texas poverty rate has generally bounced between 15 percent and 17 percent with a few exceptions. The fact that is it so consistent means that the rate of growth in the general population is basically on par with the rate of growth in the poor population. Sometimes they dont change at the same rate though, like after the recession, where the number of poor shot up but population growth was stable. This caused the poverty rate to increase. So the poverty rate is reflecting the interplay between total population change and poor population change, the latter of which is generally more affected by fluctuations in the economy. Big picture: The 4.4 million Texans in poverty in 2014 was double the 2.2 million residents in poverty in 1980,Dillon noted. In the period, the states total population increased 87 percent, escalating from 14.3 million to 26.7 million, he noted. Dillon pointed out there were times the gap between poverty in Texas and the nation narrowed, including 2014. Broadly, he wrote, the gap grew through the 1980s until about 1988, at which point it peaked at a difference of 5 percentage points. Then the gap began to narrow, he wrote, expanding and contracting every few years until 2010 when it began to close. In 2014, Texas had a poverty rate 1.6 percentage points above the national rate, Dillon said. Thats the closest we have been to the national rate since 1984, when the gap was 1.3 percentage points. Several factors, Dillon said, explain why Texas has consistently had a bigger chunk of residents in poverty than the nation on average. The state is home to a larger foreign-born population than most states and is one of a few minority-majority states in that non-Hispanic whites make up a minority of the residents, he wrote. In comparison to their numbers, minority groups in Texas tend to be overrepresented among the poor. Education level is also strongly linked to poverty status, and Texas is the near the bottom when it comes to the percentage of the adult population with a high school degree, Dillon said. Finally, Texas has a higher percentage of children than most states and child poverty has been on the rise. Today, a quarter of Texas children live below the poverty line. Dillon said the narrowing gap between the Texas and national poverty rates might be explained by the state generally growing faster than most states due both to new births and migration from other places. As long as the mix of people moving to Texas are more likely to be above the poverty line than below it, this will drive the poverty rate down. Similarly, if births to non-poor families outpace those to poor families, this will also drive the rate down, Dillon wrote. Another indicator We also askedLori Taylor, a Texas A&M University economist, to evaluate Moorheads claim. By phone, Taylor said that while its likely the Texas poverty rate has consistently outpaced the national rate, on average, its worth mention that the rate has always been calculated by assuming the same income levels put residents in poverty regardless of location. She said this has tended to lead to overstatements of people in poverty in lower cost-of-living parts of the country and understatements of residents in poverty in high-cost areas. Taylor and a colleague pointed out in aDecember 2014 articlethat in 2013, per the government's poverty threshold, a family of four with two children and a household income of $23,624 was classified as poor regardless of whether the family lived in rural Arkansas, where a typical two-bedroom apartment rents for less than $600, or in New York, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for more than $1,400. In the past few years, the census bureau has been developing its Supplemental Poverty Measure, which reaches its rates by taking into account regional differences in housing costs. And, Taylor noted, the bureaufound in its 2013 surveysthat Texas and the U.S. had the same 15.9 percent SPM rate. In contrast, the general 2013 poverty rate for the country was 14.8 percent and the Texas rate was 16.9 percent. By phone, Moorhead agreed that using a standard measure of poverty across the country is insufficient to characterize the complexity of regional economies. But the SPM is a new measure too, she said, and rates havent been calculated retroactively to cover nearly all the years included in her Texas-U.S. comparison. Our ruling Moorhead said Texas has outstripped the national poverty rate since at least 1959. Available poverty rates for select years through 1979 and for 1980 through 2014 back up this statement. Yet poverty rates dont appear to be available for many earlier years. Also, a new supplemental poverty measure makes a case for the same share of Texans and Americans lately living in poverty provided regional differences in housing costs are factored in. We rate this claim Mostly True. MOSTLY TRUE The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

True

Texas remains home to a greater share of people in poverty than the nation as a whole,Bee Moorheadwrote in a September 2015,oped articlein theAustin American-Statesman.To our inquiry, Moorhead emailed us a spreadsheet,drawing on bureau figures, indicating that in select years, or each decade from 1959 through 2009, more Texans lived below the federal poverty level, by percentage, than Americans as a whole. According to the figures, which we confirmed on the bureau website, the share of Texans in poverty was greatest in 1959 31.7 percent, 9 percentage points greater than the 22.1 percent of Americans nationally in poverty. In the selected years, the smallest gap occurred in 1979 when 14.7 percent of Texans lived in poverty compared with 13.1 percent of Americans overall, according to the figures.Moorhead said she separately drew the 2014 Texas poverty rate (16.4 percent) from a chartfetchablefrom a bureau web page last updated Sept. 16, 2015. Nationally in 2014, the bureauannounced,the poverty rate was 14.8 percent, meaning 46.7 million people lived in poverty.Moorhead also pointed out abureau websiteenabling comparisons of poverty in a state to the nation each decade from 1960 through 2010, leading us to develop this Texas-U.S. comparison:SOURCE:Web page,Poverty Rates by County, 1960-2010,U.S. Census Bureau (accessed Oct. 7, 2015)Through the bureau, the federal government has estimated residents living in poverty for more than 50 years, initially from a U.S. Department of Agriculture estimate of how much income that families under economic stress needed in order to put food on the table. How the government defines poverty has changed a bit over the years, but generally,the bureau says, it uses a set of money income thresholds that vary by family size and composition to determine who is in poverty. If a family's total income is less than the family's threshold, then that family and every individual in it is considered in poverty. The thresholds dont vary by location, the bureau says, but are updated for inflation. The poverty definition rolls in income before taxes and does not include capital gains or noncash benefits (such as public housing, Medicaid, and food stamps), the bureau says.Each years national poverty estimates derive from the bureaus Annual Social and Economic Supplement to the Current Population Survey, which surveys about 100,000 households a year, asking about income from more than 50 sources,according tothe bureau.Moorhead did not delve into poverty rates for every year from 1959 on, so we asked Daniel Dillon of the University of Texas Child and Family Research Partnership for a look. Drawing from CPS data, heput together a chartsuggesting the Texas poverty rate exceeded the national rate each year from 1959 through 2014.Big picture: The 4.4 million Texans in poverty in 2014 was double the 2.2 million residents in poverty in 1980,Dillon noted. In the period, the states total population increased 87 percent, escalating from 14.3 million to 26.7 million, he noted.We also askedLori Taylor, a Texas A&M University economist, to evaluate Moorheads claim. By phone, Taylor said that while its likely the Texas poverty rate has consistently outpaced the national rate, on average, its worth mention that the rate has always been calculated by assuming the same income levels put residents in poverty regardless of location. She said this has tended to lead to overstatements of people in poverty in lower cost-of-living parts of the country and understatements of residents in poverty in high-cost areas. Taylor and a colleague pointed out in aDecember 2014 articlethat in 2013, per the government's poverty threshold, a family of four with two children and a household income of $23,624 was classified as poor regardless of whether the family lived in rural Arkansas, where a typical two-bedroom apartment rents for less than $600, or in New York, where a two-bedroom apartment rents for more than $1,400.In the past few years, the census bureau has been developing its Supplemental Poverty Measure, which reaches its rates by taking into account regional differences in housing costs. And, Taylor noted, the bureaufound in its 2013 surveysthat Texas and the U.S. had the same 15.9 percent SPM rate. In contrast, the general 2013 poverty rate for the country was 14.8 percent and the Texas rate was 16.9 percent.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_344

Deficit spending exploded during the Obama administration to $5.3 trillion over four years, compared to $2 trillion in eight years under President George W. Bush.

09/28/2012

Remember those nerdy charts that Ross Perot flashed during his third-party run for president in 1992? The Texas billionaire's visual aids warned of the perils of America's mounting government debt. Twenty years later, Wisconsin's junior U.S. Senator, Republican Ron Johnson, is taking a page from Perot as he acts as a surrogate for Mitt Romney and advocates for a spending slowdown. Explaining one of his digital charts during a Sept. 11, 2012 campaign stop in Sheboygan, Johnson criticized Obama for saying his administration's proposed Buffett Rule tax plan for million-dollar earners would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade. "I haven't yet publicly called President Obama a liar," Johnson told his audience. "But I'm saying he lies. Slight diplomatic difference." Johnson stated that the Buffett Rule would raise just $5 billion a year. He is correct, as PolitiFact Ohio found in rating a claim by Sen. Rob Portman that it would bring in less than $5 billion per year... Enough to pay one week's interest on the national debt. Johnson's presentation uses a chart to contrast the Buffett Rule's revenue potential with the deficits accumulated under Obama (2009-2012) and over the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush (2001-2008). The chart shows deficits totaling $2 trillion in eight years under Bush and $5.3 trillion under Obama in just four years. A caption on the chart states that those deficits exploded during the Obama administration. Is Johnson right about the deficit numbers and their rapid growth? As backup, Johnson's campaign cited numbers from the White House's Office of Management and Budget. The figures show red-ink budgets in seven of eight years that coincide with Bush's term. The annual deficits totaled $820 billion in his first term and nearly $1.2 trillion in his second. Add them up, and there's the $2 trillion figure cited by Johnson. That same White House table shows four years of deficits for 2009-12, the time frame that coincides with the Obama era, ranging from $1.29 trillion to $1.4 trillion. The total, including estimated figures for 2012, is $5.33 trillion. That's nearly triple the Bush deficit figure in half the time. It seems simple, with the numbers and the trend matching up with Perot's, er, Johnson's chart. We wish it were that simple. But there is considerable disagreement in academic and political circles over how to assign responsibility to presidents for spending and deficits. Using the same table and a slightly different approach can put a somewhat different spin on the trend line—though we found no scenario under which the Bush-era deficits top those under Obama. Here's why. The big question any researcher faces is when to start and end the clock when looking at spending and deficits by presidents. It would be tidy to start the clock on Inauguration Day, but the federal budget year begins on Oct. 1. That means an incoming president inherits a budget in progress from his predecessor, though he often makes changes. That timing mismatch makes a pretty big difference, for example, in pinning deficit numbers on Bush and Obama. To wit: Democrat Bill Clinton's last budget, for fiscal 2001, resulted in a surplus of $128 billion—the last black-ink budget on record. But Johnson attributed that surplus to Bush, who entered office on Jan. 20, 2001. Johnson argues that once elected, the budget can be changed by the new president. Similarly, on the back end of the Bush years, Johnson assigns the eye-popping 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion entirely to Obama—even though Obama was working with Bush's last budget, which took effect in October 2008, during the final months of Bush's second term. That methodology becomes even more important when you consider that just before Bush left office, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 was already projected to be $1.2 trillion, according to the scorekeeping agency for Congress, as reported by PolitiFact. So, Johnson attributes the 2009 deficit entirely to Obama even though much of it was already anticipated before the Democrats' inauguration. (By the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the deficit rose to $1.4 trillion in part due to Obama's economic stimulus plan). What about Johnson's methodology? We asked three experts who closely follow the budget, and each said there is no consensus on how to attribute the overlapping budget years. Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said apportioning responsibility is really tricky. "Looking at what has happened—budget deficit-wise—during the Bush and the Obama presidencies doesn't tell the whole picture because of the differences in the fiscal year and the impacts of policies that were enacted prior to either of them assuming office," Ellis wrote in an email. Still, Ellis said he considered Johnson's numbers correct even if the presentation was simplistic. What's more, there are some extra complicating factors unique to the Bush-Obama changeover, such as how best to parcel out the deficit blame for such things as Bush's major tax cuts and Obama's more modest tax trims, two wars that overlap their presidencies, two recessions, a Wall Street bailout that each supported, and major new programs under each (Medicare prescription drugs, stimulus). The Great Recession of 2007-2009, which fueled deficits when tax collections fell, also overlapped the two presidencies. Jason Peuquet, research director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Johnson's numbers were defensible. He suggested looking at the increase in debt—as opposed to deficits—because it can be tracked to the day a president starts and ends a term. By that measure, we found a $4.9 trillion increase in gross public debt in Bush's two terms vs. $5.4 trillion so far in Obama's single term. Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said there is no good answer to your question that is going to satisfy everyone. Our rating: Johnson's chart showed $2 trillion in deficits under Bush and $5.3 trillion under Obama, and concluded that deficits exploded during the Obama administration. The numbers check out, but comparing presidents' budget records is not as simple as Johnson's chart suggests. For instance, Bush owns some debatable piece of the Obama deficits. We rate Johnson's claim Mostly True.

True

Remember those nerdychartsthat Ross Perot flashed during his third-party run for president in 1992?The Texas billionaires visual aids warned of the perils of Americas mounting government debt.Twenty years later, Wisconsins junior U.S. Senator, RepublicanRon Johnson, is taking a page from Perot as he acts as a surrogate for Mitt Romney and advocates for a spending slowdown.Explaining one of hisdigital chartsduring a Sept. 11, 2012 campaign stop in Sheboygan, Johnson ripped Obama forsayinghis administrations proposedBuffett ruletax plan for million-dollar earners would stabilize our debt and deficits for the next decade.I havent yet publicly called President Obama a liar, Johnsontold his audience. But Im saying he lies. Slight diplomatic difference.Johnson said the Buffett rule would raise just $5 billion a year. Hes right, as PolitiFact Ohio found in ratingTruea claim by Sen. Rob Portman that it would bring in less than $5 billion per year... Enough to pay one weeks interest on the national debt.Johnsons presentation uses a chart to contrast the Buffett Rules revenue potential to the deficits accumulated under Obama (2009-2012) and over the two terms of his predecessor, Republican George W. Bush (2001-2008).The chart shows deficits totalling $2 trillion in eight years under Bush, and $5.3 trillion under Obama in just four years. A caption on the chart says those deficits exploded during the Obama administration.Is Johnson right on the deficit numbers and their rapid growth?As backup, Johnsons campaign cited numbers from the White HousesOffice of Management and Budget.The figures show red-ink budgets in seven of eight years that coincide with Bushs term. The annual deficits totalled $820 billion in his first term and nearly $1.2 trillion in his second.Add them up and theres the $2 trillion figure cited by Johnson.That same White House table shows four years of deficits for 2009-12, the time frame that coincides with the Obama era, ranging from $1.29 trillion to $1.4 trillion. The total, including estimated figures for 2012, is $5.33 trillion.Thats nearly triple the Bush deficit figure, in half the time.It seems simple, with the numbers and the trend matching up with Perots, er, Johnsons chart.We wish it were that simple.But there is considerable disagreement in academic and political circles over how to assign responsibility to presidents for spending and deficits.Using the same table and a slightly different approach can put a somewhat different spin on the trend line -- though we found no scenario under which the Bush-era deficits top those under Obama.Heres why.The big question any researcher faces is when to start and end the clock when looking at spending and deficit by presidents.It would be tidy to start the clock on Inauguration Day, but the federal budget year begins Oct. 1. That means an incoming president inherits a budget-in-progress from his predecessor, though he often makes changes.That timing mismatch makes a pretty big difference, for example, in pinning deficit numbers on Bush and Obama.To wit: Democrat Bill Clintons last budget, for fiscal 2001, resulted in a surplus of $128 billion -- the last black-ink budget on record. But Johnson attributed that surplus to Bush, who entered office Jan. 20, 2001. Johnson argues that once elected the budget can be changed by the new president.Similarly, on the back end of the Bush years, Johnson gives the eye-popping 2009 deficit of $1.4 trillion all to Obama -- even though Obama was working with Bushs last budget, which took effect in October 2008, during the final months of Bushs second term.That methodology becomes even more important when you consider that just before Bush left office, the deficit for fiscal year 2009 already was projected to be $1.2 trillion, according to the scorekeeping agency for Congress, as reported byPolitiFact.So, Johnson attributes the 2009 deficit entirely to Obama even though much it was already anticipated before the Democrats inauguration. (By the end of the 2009 fiscal year, the deficit rose to $1.4 trillion in part due to Obamas economic stimulus plan).What about Johnsons methodology?We asked three experts who closely follow the budget, and each said there is no consensus on how to attribute the overlapping budget years.Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense, said apportioning responsibility is really tricky.Looking at what has happened -- budget deficit-wise -- during the Bush and the Obama presidencies doesnt tell the whole picture because of the differences of the fiscal year and impacts of policies that were enacted prior to either of them assuming office, Ellis wrote in an email.Still, Ellis said he considered Johnsons numbers correct even if the presentation was simplistic.Whats more, there are some extra complicating factors unique to the Bush-Obama changeover, such as how best to parcel out the deficit blame for such things as Bushs major tax cuts and Obamas more modest tax trims, two wars that overlap their presidencies, two recessions, a Wall Street bailout that each supported, and major new programs under each (Medicare prescription drugs, stimulus).The Great Recession of 2007-2009, which fueled deficits when tax collections fell, also overlapped the two presidencies.Jason Peuquet, research director for the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said Johnsons numbers were defensible. He suggested looking at theincrease in debt-- as opposed to deficits -- because it can be tracked to the day a president starts and ends a term.By that measure, we found a $4.9 trillion increase in gross public debt in Bushs two terms vs. $5.4 trillion so far in Obamas single term.Gary Burtless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, said there is no good answer to your question that is going to satisfy everyone.Our ratingJohnsons chart showed $2 trillion in deficits under Bush and $5.3 trillion under Obama, and concluded that deficits exploded during the Obama administration.The numbers check out, but comparing presidents budget records is not as simple as Johnsons chart suggests. For instance, Bush owns some debatable piece of the Obama deficits.We rate Johnsons claim Mostly True.

FMD_train_348

An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative [due to SuperPACs], up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008.

08/05/2012

Negative campaign ads: most people say they hate them, but studies show that many people are swayed by them.Thus, major races can get pretty nasty, and there's a fear that the presidential contest this year will break all records for nastiness, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010Citizens United decision. The court upheld the right of persons, organizations and corporations to spend as much as they would like on political advertising -- while hiding their involvement -- through the use of organizations known as super political action committees (Super-PACs).To shed some light on who is behind such attack ads, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, has been promoting the DISCLOSE Act. The name is an acronym for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.When you don't have accountability, there's no limit to the things that people will say,Whitehouse said during a debateon the floor of the Senate. One of the restraints on the vitriol and the filth that so often is part of the American political debate is that candidates have to stand by their ads.And if you say something that is awful, if you engage in relentless negative attacks, voters may charge you a price for that, Whitehouse said. Well, that of course disappears when the name behind the ad is attached to no living person or corporation. It's just an entity, it's a sham, it's a phony, it's a shell.The DISCLOSE actwould requiresome tax-exempt groups that engage in political advertising to reveal individual donors who gave $10,000 or more.Critics saythe act discriminates because it wouldn't apply to unions. They also say disclosure might open donors up to intimidation and ridicule, inhibiting free speech.During an unsuccessful push to bring the proposal to a vote in the Senate -- a drive blocked twice by Republicans, on July 16 and 17 -- Whitehouse said the Citizens United decision was already sparking a giant increase in negative political advertising.An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008, he said.That's a big jump in negative advertising. We wondered if it were true.The contextWhen we contacted Whitehouse's office, spokesman Seth Larson sent us toa studyreleased May 2, 2012, by the Wesleyan Media Project at Wesleyan University. It defined a negative advertisement as an ad in which the candidate's opponent is mentioned.The study looked only at TV ads in the presidential races and only ads broadcast from January 1 through April 22 of 2008 and the same period in 2012.It turns out that Whitehouse quoted the study accurately. The researchers said that 70.0 percent of all ads in 2012 were negative during that period, compared with 9.1 percent in 2008.But Whitehouse also said that the Citizens United decision is responsible for that increase in negative ads, so lets look at that aspect.The political scientists we spoke with said the Supreme Court decision is having a huge effect on the tone and rhythm of the 2012 campaign.The Wesleyan study suggests that the effect was already clear in the first four months of this year.Consider the ads purchased by special-interest groups or SuperPACs.Of the 10,062 special-interest group ads aired during the first quarter of 2008, 75 percent were rated positive and 25 percent were rated negative.By 2012, the number of special-interest ads had exploded, jumping more than 12-fold to 123,062. In addition, the mix of ads had reversed, with only 14 percent positive and 86 percent negative.Meanwhile, the number of ads bought by candidates themselves plummeted, from 289,622 in the first quarter of 2008 to 74,267 this year, an indication that they were letting the special interest ads carry the ball for promoting their candidacies.AsMichael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, said in the report, That's a lot of money and airtime backed by undisclosed sources.Other factors affect rateBut Franz and the other experts we consulted cautioned that additional factors are also at work.The first four months of the 2008 race were very different from the same period in the 2012 contest.In early 2008, one reason the number was so low was because the [Barack] Obama and [Hillary] Clinton campaigns didn't really attack each other on TV that much, said Franz, now at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. They did off the air, and they were obviously quite ruthless. But in the ads themselves, there wasn't a lot of sniping back and forth against each other. They promoted themselves primarily.That changed for Obama in the general election, Franz said. He was a very negative candidate and once the general election started, it became an overwhelmingly negative campaign, as it usually is in the general election.During the first four months of 2012, SuperPACs drove up the percentage of negative ads, he said, but also candidates have been overwhelmingly negative against each other in the [2012] Republican primary.So let's look at the types of ads placed by the candidates themselves.In 2008, only 9 percent of the ads placed by all the candidates in the first four months of the year were negative.By 2012 that number had grown to nearly 53 percent.The first four months of a presidential election year are not necessarily the best guide to the rhythm of the rest of a presidential campaign. I really don't think they're indicative of what's to come, said Mary Ellen Balchunis, a political scientist at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. It's how close the polls are, it's whether your opponent is going negative, it's whether you are responding.Early in the contest, the ads are generally more about who the candidate is and what the candidate would do. That's particularly true for a challenger, saidStephen Farnsworthof the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., a key swing state. There are always some negative ads, but they are really sprinkled in the mix. In the fall, when people are really turning their attention to the election, that's when the number of negative ads escalates.In this election cycle, things are already so negative, it's hard to imagine that there's much room for them to get more negative between now and November, said Farnsworth, author of Spinner-in-Chief: How Presidents Sell Their Policies and Themselves.Our rulingSheldon Whitehouse said, An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008.He is correctly quoting the study, but the context of his comment makes it clear that he blames the SuperPACs, which were freed up by the Citizens United decision.Those special-interest groups are certainly playing a much larger role this year, in part because they have become the major source of TV ad purchases.But the data also reveal that the candidates are being far more negative earlier in the campaign than they were four years ago, and that also drove up the percentage of negative ads in the beginning of 2012.Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate the claim asMostly True. (Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.)

True

Negative campaign ads: most people say they hate them, but studies show that many people are swayed by them.Thus, major races can get pretty nasty, and there's a fear that the presidential contest this year will break all records for nastiness, thanks to the U.S. Supreme Courts 2010Citizens United decision. The court upheld the right of persons, organizations and corporations to spend as much as they would like on political advertising -- while hiding their involvement -- through the use of organizations known as super political action committees (Super-PACs).To shed some light on who is behind such attack ads, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-RI, has been promoting the DISCLOSE Act. The name is an acronym for Democracy Is Strengthened by Casting Light on Spending in Elections.When you don't have accountability, there's no limit to the things that people will say,Whitehouse said during a debateon the floor of the Senate. One of the restraints on the vitriol and the filth that so often is part of the American political debate is that candidates have to stand by their ads.And if you say something that is awful, if you engage in relentless negative attacks, voters may charge you a price for that, Whitehouse said. Well, that of course disappears when the name behind the ad is attached to no living person or corporation. It's just an entity, it's a sham, it's a phony, it's a shell.The DISCLOSE actwould requiresome tax-exempt groups that engage in political advertising to reveal individual donors who gave $10,000 or more.Critics saythe act discriminates because it wouldn't apply to unions. They also say disclosure might open donors up to intimidation and ridicule, inhibiting free speech.During an unsuccessful push to bring the proposal to a vote in the Senate -- a drive blocked twice by Republicans, on July 16 and 17 -- Whitehouse said the Citizens United decision was already sparking a giant increase in negative political advertising.An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008, he said.That's a big jump in negative advertising. We wondered if it were true.The contextWhen we contacted Whitehouse's office, spokesman Seth Larson sent us toa studyreleased May 2, 2012, by the Wesleyan Media Project at Wesleyan University. It defined a negative advertisement as an ad in which the candidate's opponent is mentioned.The study looked only at TV ads in the presidential races and only ads broadcast from January 1 through April 22 of 2008 and the same period in 2012.It turns out that Whitehouse quoted the study accurately. The researchers said that 70.0 percent of all ads in 2012 were negative during that period, compared with 9.1 percent in 2008.But Whitehouse also said that the Citizens United decision is responsible for that increase in negative ads, so lets look at that aspect.The political scientists we spoke with said the Supreme Court decision is having a huge effect on the tone and rhythm of the 2012 campaign.The Wesleyan study suggests that the effect was already clear in the first four months of this year.Consider the ads purchased by special-interest groups or SuperPACs.Of the 10,062 special-interest group ads aired during the first quarter of 2008, 75 percent were rated positive and 25 percent were rated negative.By 2012, the number of special-interest ads had exploded, jumping more than 12-fold to 123,062. In addition, the mix of ads had reversed, with only 14 percent positive and 86 percent negative.Meanwhile, the number of ads bought by candidates themselves plummeted, from 289,622 in the first quarter of 2008 to 74,267 this year, an indication that they were letting the special interest ads carry the ball for promoting their candidacies.AsMichael Franz, co-director of the Wesleyan Media Project, said in the report, That's a lot of money and airtime backed by undisclosed sources.Other factors affect rateBut Franz and the other experts we consulted cautioned that additional factors are also at work.The first four months of the 2008 race were very different from the same period in the 2012 contest.In early 2008, one reason the number was so low was because the [Barack] Obama and [Hillary] Clinton campaigns didn't really attack each other on TV that much, said Franz, now at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. They did off the air, and they were obviously quite ruthless. But in the ads themselves, there wasn't a lot of sniping back and forth against each other. They promoted themselves primarily.That changed for Obama in the general election, Franz said. He was a very negative candidate and once the general election started, it became an overwhelmingly negative campaign, as it usually is in the general election.During the first four months of 2012, SuperPACs drove up the percentage of negative ads, he said, but also candidates have been overwhelmingly negative against each other in the [2012] Republican primary.So let's look at the types of ads placed by the candidates themselves.In 2008, only 9 percent of the ads placed by all the candidates in the first four months of the year were negative.By 2012 that number had grown to nearly 53 percent.The first four months of a presidential election year are not necessarily the best guide to the rhythm of the rest of a presidential campaign. I really don't think they're indicative of what's to come, said Mary Ellen Balchunis, a political scientist at LaSalle University in Philadelphia. It's how close the polls are, it's whether your opponent is going negative, it's whether you are responding.Early in the contest, the ads are generally more about who the candidate is and what the candidate would do. That's particularly true for a challenger, saidStephen Farnsworthof the University of Mary Washington in Fredericksburg, Va., a key swing state. There are always some negative ads, but they are really sprinkled in the mix. In the fall, when people are really turning their attention to the election, that's when the number of negative ads escalates.In this election cycle, things are already so negative, it's hard to imagine that there's much room for them to get more negative between now and November, said Farnsworth, author of Spinner-in-Chief: How Presidents Sell Their Policies and Themselves.Our rulingSheldon Whitehouse said, An April study found that about 70 percent of ads in this election cycle have been negative, up from only 9 percent through the same period in 2008.He is correctly quoting the study, but the context of his comment makes it clear that he blames the SuperPACs, which were freed up by the Citizens United decision.Those special-interest groups are certainly playing a much larger role this year, in part because they have become the major source of TV ad purchases.But the data also reveal that the candidates are being far more negative earlier in the campaign than they were four years ago, and that also drove up the percentage of negative ads in the beginning of 2012.Because his statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information, we rate the claim asMostly True.(Get updates from PolitiFact Rhode Island on Twitter:@politifactri. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on ourPolitiFact Rhode Island Facebookpage.)

FMD_train_728

Is This Email About a Google Plus Settlement Real?

08/07/2020

In August 2020, some users of Gmail, the Google email service, reported receiving a message with the subject line, "Notice of Class Action Settlement re Google Plus Your Rights May Be Affected." The email claimed that users of the now-defunct Google Plus social network, which was owned and operated by Google, may be eligible for a cash payment from a 2018 lawsuit settlement. The email directed them to a website that outlined options for receiving the payment. The lawsuit was reportedly the result of a data breach that exposed the private information of hundreds of thousands of Google Plus users. website Snopes readers and many online users speculated it was a scam, given that the email began with the words, You are not being sued. scam Despite the apprehension of users, we learned that this email did indeed come from Google, referred to a real settlement, and that users could indeed receive a cash payment. The email said: You are not being sued. This notice affects your rights. Please read it carefully. On June 10, 2020, the Honorable Edward J. Davila of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, granted preliminary approval of this class action Settlement and directed the litigants to provide this notice about the Settlement. You have received this notice because Googles records indicate that you may be a Settlement Class Member, and you may be eligible to receive a payment from the Settlement. Please visit www.GooglePlusDataLitigation.com for more information. The Final Approval Hearing on the adequacy, reasonableness, and fairness of the Settlement will be held at 9:00 am on November 19, 2020 [...] You are not required to attend the Final Approval Hearing, but you are welcome to do so at your own expense. In a statement to the business magazine Fast Company, and in a tweet, Google confirmed that the email and its contents were real. Responding to a Twitter user who asked if the email was a scam, Gmails verified account directed the person to the aforementioned website: Fast Company tweet Snopes reached out to Google for confirmation, and we will update this post if we receive more information. The situation that led to Gmail users receiving the email began in 2018 with a lawsuit resulting from a privacy blunder. Earlier that year, Google discovered that software bugs exposed data of up to 500,000 users of Google Plus since 2015. Google later claimed that the data included names, email addresses, age, gender, and occupation. The breach allowed third-party developers to potentially access this information, though the company claimed it found no evidence that anyone misused or stole the data. The technology giant plugged the data leak in March 2018, but did not publicize it. After a Wall Street Journal report exposed the leak in October 2018, a number of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Google on behalf of users reportedly affected by the exposure of their personal data. Google Plus was shuttered by early 2019. privacy blunder potentially access Wall Street Journal lawsuit In August 2020, some Gmail users received the email from the email address [email protected], alerting them about the June of 2020 lawsuit settlement, which required that Google pay $7.5 million in payments to claimants and other associated fees. Claimants were defined in the email as, all persons within the United States who (a) had a consumer Google+ account for any period of time between January 1, 2015 and April 2, 2019, and (2) had their non-public Profile Information exposed as a result of the software bugs Google announced. The website GooglePlusDataLitigation.com also offered options for claimants, which ranged from submitting a claim by Oct. 8, 2020, opting out of the settlement, filing an objection to the settlement, or doing nothing. The claim form requires users to fill out their name and contact information and confirm they used Google Plus within the stipulated period of time mentioned above. GooglePlusDataLitigation.com claim form As it turned out, the actual amount of cash one could receive wasnt too much. Claimants could get the tidy sum of up to $5 or $12 depending on the number of people who filed valid claims but would have to waive their right to future litigation against Google in relation to this case. According to the email: If sufficient funds remain after calculation of the aggregate initial maximum distribution of US$5.00 per Claimant, the allocation shall be recalculated on a pro rata basis up to a maximum distribution of up to US$12.00 per Claimant. For clarity, the maximum Settlement Payment to be made to any single Claimant shall not exceed US$12.00. In summary, based on confirmation from Google on multiple platforms about the veracity of the email, and the process of receiving funds from the settlement, we rate this claim as True. Google Plus Profile Litigation. "Case No. 5:18-CV-06164-EJD (VKD) United States District Court Northern District of California." Accessed 6 August 2020. MacMillan, Douglas and Robert McMillan. "Google Exposed User Data, Feared Repercussions of Disclosing to Public." The Wall Street Journal. 8 October 2018. Newman, Jared. "Google Admits to Potential Google+ Data Leak After Getting Caught." Fast Company. 8 October 2020. Newman, Lily Hay. "Google's Privacy Whiplash Shows Big Tech's Inherent Contradictions." Wired. 8 October 2018. Zara, Christopher. "Whats Up With That Google Plus Lawsuit Settlement Email? Its Real, But its Also Weird." Fast Company. 5 August 2020.

True

The email claimed that users of the now-defunct Google Plus social network, which was owned and operated by Google, may be eligible for a cash payment from a 2018 lawsuit settlement. The email directed them to a website that outlined options for receiving the payment. The lawsuit was reportedly the result of a data breach that exposed the private information of hundreds of thousands of Google Plus users. Snopes readers and many online users speculated it was a scam, given that the email began with the words, You are not being sued.In a statement to the business magazine Fast Company, and in a tweet, Google confirmed that the email and its contents were real. Responding to a Twitter user who asked if the email was a scam, Gmails verified account directed the person to the aforementioned website:The situation that led to Gmail users receiving the email began in 2018 with a lawsuit resulting from a privacy blunder. Earlier that year, Google discovered that software bugs exposed data of up to 500,000 users of Google Plus since 2015. Google later claimed that the data included names, email addresses, age, gender, and occupation. The breach allowed third-party developers to potentially access this information, though the company claimed it found no evidence that anyone misused or stole the data. The technology giant plugged the data leak in March 2018, but did not publicize it. After a Wall Street Journal report exposed the leak in October 2018, a number of plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against Google on behalf of users reportedly affected by the exposure of their personal data. Google Plus was shuttered by early 2019. The website GooglePlusDataLitigation.com also offered options for claimants, which ranged from submitting a claim by Oct. 8, 2020, opting out of the settlement, filing an objection to the settlement, or doing nothing. The claim form requires users to fill out their name and contact information and confirm they used Google Plus within the stipulated period of time mentioned above.

FMD_train_1485

In Austin, Texas, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture, meaning funds spent in non-Austin school districts.

12/16/2016

For years, Austin taxpayers have indirectly helped fund schools elsewhere in accordance with the state's more than 20-year-old system for equalizing aid among school districts, some of which have vast differences in taxable property wealth. Kirk Watson, the Democratic state senator from Travis County, attached an eye-catching figure to those costs during a November 2016 Texas Tribune panel discussion about hot issues in the 2017 legislative session. In Austin, Texas, Watson said, the average homeowner is paying about $1,300 to $1,400 just for recapture, referring to funds shifted to less property-rich districts elsewhere. And so that's going to the state to fund state obligations. We have to look at how we are managing our school finance system so that we can do right by the people in this state and have a fair and equitable system. We asked Watson's office how he arrived at his figure for how much average Austin homeowners are paying to schools elsewhere. By email, Kate Alexander said Watson relied on September 2016 testimony by the Austin school district's chief financial officer. According to Nicole Conley's prepared remarks for a Sept. 28, 2016, appearance at a joint hearing of the Texas House committees on appropriations and public education, Conley described the Austin school district as the state's largest single payer of recapture. "Our payment alone comprises 13 percent of all state collections," Conley's testimony states. During the next five years, between fiscal years 2016 and 2020, Austin ISD is projected to pay almost $2.6 billion in recapture payments to the state. By 2019, more than half of every tax dollar collected in Austin will go to the state. Later in her testimony, Conley said, "So to put it in perspective, we could lower our tax rate by 35 cents if we weren't sending $406 million to the state under the recapture system. For the average homeowner in Austin, that would amount to about $1,400 in lower taxes. That's fairly substantial; that's pretty significant tax relief. That would certainly make Austin more affordable for some of our taxpayers." In response to our inquiry, district spokesman Jacob Barrett told us Conley reached her savings figure for the average homeowner starting from the district's 2016-17 budget, indicating it expects to pay $406 million in recapture to the state in accordance with the school funding system. That payment amounts to 38 percent of the district's $1.061 billion in budgeted property taxes, Barrett noted. Barrett explained that the district calculated the average homeowner's share of the budgeted recapture payment starting from its average taxable value of a home in the district of $328,844 (as of June 2016), on which such an owner expected to pay $3,548 in school maintenance and operations property taxes at the M&O tax rate of $1.079 per $100 valuation. Finally, Barrett said, multiplying the 38 percent by that $3,548 yields the portion of taxes on an average-value residence that goes to recapture, which amounts to $1,355. Barrett also emailed us a December 2012 district document showing that, by amount, the Austin district's 2015 recapture payment was followed by what was paid by the Highland Park (Dallas), Eanes, Cotulla, and Karnes City districts, respectively. Additionally, the document states that the Austin district's annual recapture payment is projected to exceed $630 million in 2019, when more than half of every school property tax dollar collected locally will be recaptured by the state. Next, we asked non-district experts—Joe Wisnoski, a former Texas Education Agency official; Tom Canby of the Texas Association of School Business Officials; and Christy Rome, who advocates for districts required to make recapture payments—to evaluate how the Austin district determined that the average Austin homeowner will pay $1,355 in school property taxes toward the district's 2016-17 recapture total. "Solid," each expert said. By email, Wisnoski cautioned, though, "The average doesn't really describe much about the distribution of payment amounts, so you don't really know how many taxpayers are clustered close to that amount, and how many are really far away (high or low) compared to the average." Finally, we looked into how much a district resident with a median-value home might be paying toward its recapture total. For that, we ran the median value of homes in the Austin district as of Aug. 8, 2016—$261,487—through the district's equation. The result: The median-value homeowner is expected to pay $2,821 in M&O school taxes, of which $1,078 would be their share of the district's recapture payment. Barrett, the district spokesman, didn't question our math. He noted, though, that Watson referred to the average homeowner. "It's fair," Barrett said by email, "to use the variable that we do."

True

Kirk Watson, the Democratic state senator from Travis County, attached an ear-catching figure to those costs during a November 2016Texas Tribune panel discussionabout hot issues in the 2017 legislative session.According to Nicole Conley'sprepared remarksfor a Sept. 28, 2016, appearance at a joint hearing of the Texas House committees on appropriations and public education, Conley described the Austin school district as the states largest single payer of recapture.Later inher testimony: Conley said: So to put it in perspective, we could lower our tax rate by 35 cents if we werent sending $406 million to the state under the recapture system. For the average homeowner in Austin, that would amount to about $1,400 in lower taxes. Thats fairly substantial; thats pretty significant tax relief. That would certainly make Austin more affordable for some of our taxpayers.Barrett said the district got to the average homeowners share of the budgeted recapture payment starting from its average taxable value of a home in the district of $328,844 (as of June 2016) on which such an owner expected to pay $3,548 in school maintenance and operations property taxes at the M&O tax rate of $1.079 per $100 valuation. Finally, Barrett said, multiplying the 38 percent by that $3,548 delivers the portion of taxes on an average-value residence that goes to recapture of $1,355.Barrett also emailed us a December 2012district documentshowing that by amount, the Austin district's 2015 recapture payment was followed by what was paid by the Highland Park (Dallas); Eanes; Cotulla; and Karnes City districts, respectively. Also, the document says, the Austin districts annual recapture payment is projected to exceed $630 million in 2019 when more than half of every school property tax dollar collected locally will be recaptured by the state.TRUE The statement is accurate and theres nothing significant missing. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/f5103bc2-4b1f-4b8e-9d32-d1795f788004

FMD_train_854

Does This Video Show a Black Friday Fight Over Vegetable Steamers?

11/27/2015

On 26 November 2015, YouTube user BlackFriday Fight uploaded a video titled "lady steals from KID! black friday 2015," along with the following comments: "I'm posting anonymously because I don't want to be fired, but I work at this store in Saginaw, and this lady stole a veggie steamer from a KID on Black Friday! Shame." According to the uploader, who wished to remain anonymous, the footage was captured at an unnamed retail location in Saginaw, Michigan, on Black Friday. The video was uploaded on 26 November 2015, one day prior to Black Friday, which fell on 27 November 2015, but it could conceivably have depicted a midnight "doorbuster" sale scenario. The clip shows a crowd of shoppers descending upon a stack of what appear to be vegetable steamers, which, while possibly attractively priced, weren't on par with Cabbage Patch Kids or Furbys in the genre of "Christmas crazes." We searched for major chain store deals on vegetable steamers in 2015 but were unable to locate any incredible deals matching vegetable steaming gadgets in any big box stores. As commenters immediately pointed out, the short clip featured several indicators that it was staged. In addition to plausibility—since even most vegans do not have that much interest in acquiring a vegetable steamer—the "victims" in the clip were first spotted in a frame away from the fracas, walking into the area of the frenzy while carrying identical boxes. The clip opened with a rush of shoppers, all of whom appeared to fall to the ground in a dramatic and entirely unnecessary fashion. The woman whose child was targeted by the box-snatcher did not appear to enter with other customers; instead, she was seen far off in a visible aisle already carrying the boxes. Finally, the purported altercation in which the woman swiped a vegetable steamer box from the hands of a small child occurred while several boxes remained unclaimed nearby. Both shoppers were just inches from the uncontested vegetable steamers, providing no reason for a heartless shopper to target a small child. The circumstances under which the clip was shot have yet to be disclosed, but its early appearance and implausible events suggest that the video was staged for attention or a larger prank. Users across social media commenting on the video widely suspected late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, but no evidence suggested that the clip was his work.

NEI

The circumstances under which the clip was shot have yet to be disclosed, but its early appearance and implausible events suggest the video was staged for attention or a larger prank. (Users across social media commenting on the video widely suspected late-night host Jimmy Kimmel, but no evidence suggested the clip was his work.)

FMD_train_231

Was there an allegation that Derek Chauvin failed to report $500,000 in income?

06/28/2021

In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..." wrote That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day. popular Reddit post On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020. sentenced The claim that Chauvin "underreported half a million dollars in income" stems from an ongoing criminal case against him, and his former wife Kellie May Chauvin. However, Chauvin has not yet entered a plea in that case, and has not been tried or convicted, as of June 28, 2021. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin. expressed an intention On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota." charged The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: complaint The Chauvins did not file tax returns in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The filed tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 did not report income received from D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. Tax returns for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 filed on June 26, 2020, did not report D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. According to prosecutors, the Chauvins under-reported a total of $464,433 in income between 2014 and 2019, just short of the "half a million dollars" included in the widely-shared tweet from June 2021: Source: Washington County Attorney's Office However, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes. could potentially enter pleas Since Derek Chauvin has not yet pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charges against him, and neither might ever occur, the claim that he "under-reported half a million dollars in income" was unproven, as of June 28. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly.

NEI

In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..."That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day.On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020.A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin. On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota."The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: Source: Washington County Attorney's OfficeHowever, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes.

FMD_train_25

Did 'Not a Single Republican' Clap When Biden Mentioned Cutting Child Poverty?

04/30/2021

In April 2021, after U.S. President Joe Biden's first address to a joint session of Congress, the left-leaning Facebook page Occupy Democrats posted a meme that claimed Republican Congress members had abjectly failed to applaud Biden's stated goal of drastically reducing the rate of child poverty in the United States. The meme, posted on April 28, the evening of the speech, contained what appeared to be a screenshot from a video stream, showing the Democratic side of the House of Representatives chamber standing and applauding, while members on the Republican side (circled in red) largely sat and did not appear to applaud. The meme contained the following text: posted Everything you need to know about today's Republican party is that Biden just said that because of his stimulus bill, America is cutting child poverty in half... And not a single Republican clapped. As events with a significant element of ritual and political theater, the newly elected president's first Congressional address and subsequent State of the Union addresses are the frequent subjects of political points-scoring and at times divisive analysis. Partisans on both sides habitually scrutinize the actions and body language of politicians from the opposite side, and Snopes has examined such claims several times in the past. examined such claims It's also worth noting that representatives and senators, in the context of an address by a president from the other party, might choose to applaud or stand, or not, for various reasons, even when the president has made a statement that some might interpret as worthy of universal support or celebration. For example, during then-President Donald Trump's equivalent address to a joint session of Congress, in February 2017, he touted the retention of manufacturing and jobs within the United States, saying various major companies "have announced that they will invest billions and billions of dollars in the United States and will create tens of thousands of new American jobs." In response, Republicans stood, cheered, and applauded, while cameras showed that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained impassive. remained impassive A politically motivated interpretation of her body language might be that she failed to applaud because she hates American jobs, or resented economic growth under Trump's tenure. However, a more plausible explanation is that she doubted the underlying sincerity of Trump's commitment to increased employment, that she objected to his presenting those commercial decisions as one of his own accomplishments, and so on. Similarly, during his 2018 State of the Union address, Trump said "Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs," which was greeted with cheering and applause by Republicans, but almost total silence among Democrats. That could be a sign that those Democrats despise job creation, but it's much more likely to mean that they objected to Trump's touting employment figures as one of his own accomplishments, for example. silence Those important disclaimers should be borne in mind when considering the actions and body language of Republicans during Biden's April 2021 address. As is customary, Biden listed what he presented as the achievements of his first 100 days in office: expanded access to health care; the provision of stimulus checks; added investment in veterans' health care; and H.R. 1319, the "American Rescue Plan" a major stimulus and relief package to aid in the federal government's response to the public health and economic crises engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic. H.R. 1319 Biden went on to say: Were making one of the largest one-time ever investments ever in improving healthcare for veterans. Critical investments to address the opioid crisis. And, maybe most importantly, thanks to the American Rescue Plan, were on track to cut child poverty in America in half this year. That declaration was met with a standing ovation and universal applause among Democrats in the chamber: The screenshot included in the Occupy Democrats meme was authentic and showed a snapshot of the reaction to Biden's child poverty remarks on both sides of the chamber. Here's roughly the same view, taken from the CBS News live stream of the speech. Democrats can be seen on the right-hand side, while the Republican side is on the left: live stream However, Occupy Democrats' claim that "not a single Republican" applauded Biden's remarks seriously misrepresented what actually happened. As a result, we are issuing a rating of In reality, our analysis of video footage from the address shows that at least 11 individuals seated in the Republican half of the chamber applauded in response to Biden's remarks on child poverty. We have positively identified two of those as cabinet secretaries Lloyd Austin and Anthony Blinken, who are not Congressional Republicans and therefore don't factor into our debunking of the Occupy Democrats meme, but for the record, can be seen below, with Austin standing on the left and Blinken standing on the right: The remaining nine individuals who applauded were all highly likely to be Congressional Republicans, providing ample evidence to discredit the "not a single Republican" claim. Those 11 individuals are highlighted in the screenshot below, and we have positively identified the following three Congressional Republicans: To view a larger, more detailed version of this annotated screenshot, click here. click here Although clearly not as enthusiastic as their Democratic counterparts, the extent of Republican applause for Biden's remarks is fully revealed by carefully viewing the following footage: The claim that "not a single Republican clapped" when Biden mentioned halving child poverty was manifestly false. In fact, several of them clearly did, three of whom we have so far been able to positively identify. If and when we confirm the identity of additional Congressional Republicans, we will update this fact check accordingly.

False

The meme, posted on April 28, the evening of the speech, contained what appeared to be a screenshot from a video stream, showing the Democratic side of the House of Representatives chamber standing and applauding, while members on the Republican side (circled in red) largely sat and did not appear to applaud. The meme contained the following text:As events with a significant element of ritual and political theater, the newly elected president's first Congressional address and subsequent State of the Union addresses are the frequent subjects of political points-scoring and at times divisive analysis. Partisans on both sides habitually scrutinize the actions and body language of politicians from the opposite side, and Snopes has examined such claims several times in the past. In response, Republicans stood, cheered, and applauded, while cameras showed that Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi remained impassive.Similarly, during his 2018 State of the Union address, Trump said "Since the election, we have created 2.4 million new jobs," which was greeted with cheering and applause by Republicans, but almost total silence among Democrats. That could be a sign that those Democrats despise job creation, but it's much more likely to mean that they objected to Trump's touting employment figures as one of his own accomplishments, for example. As is customary, Biden listed what he presented as the achievements of his first 100 days in office: expanded access to health care; the provision of stimulus checks; added investment in veterans' health care; and H.R. 1319, the "American Rescue Plan" a major stimulus and relief package to aid in the federal government's response to the public health and economic crises engendered by the COVID-19 pandemic. The screenshot included in the Occupy Democrats meme was authentic and showed a snapshot of the reaction to Biden's child poverty remarks on both sides of the chamber. Here's roughly the same view, taken from the CBS News live stream of the speech. Democrats can be seen on the right-hand side, while the Republican side is on the left:To view a larger, more detailed version of this annotated screenshot, click here.

FMD_train_921

SCAM ALERT: Texas Roadhouse Vouchers on Facebook

09/29/2021

In late September 2021, Snopes readers asked us to examine the facts surrounding a widely-shared but suspicious-looking Facebook promotion that promised users free Texas Roadhouse vouchers in return for them sharing and commenting on the post. One version of the scam consisted of several photos of what appeared to be Texas Roadhouse steak dishes, as well as a picture of staff attending a ribbon-cutting ceremony for a new restaurant, along with the following text: Im Gerald L.Morgan, CEO of texas roadhouses. I know times have been tough so to help everyone out I have a special surprise for everyone who shares&comments then. Every person who does this by Sep 29th can get a voucher. Each voucher can be used at any texas roadhouses restaurant to get a meal for two with drinks! A second version of the scam invited users to like, share or comment on the post, before clicking on a link and "entering" or "registering" [safe link] for the voucher: registering Users who clicked on one of those links were directed to various dubious websites (we have archived or made screenshots of these links, so they are safe to click on) where they were instructed to "claim" their prize or "register." Clicking on those links, in turn, brought users to a variety of entirely unrelated websites offering various dubious promotions and gift card offers of their own. various dubious websites dubious promotions Snopes discovered that at least 13 separate Facebook profiles ran various versions of the Texas Roadhouse scam, in the final days of September 2021, with all of them using the blatantly inauthentic profile name "Texas Roadhouse's." The actual Texas Roadhouse chain addressed the scam in a Sept. 28 Facebook post, writing: Sept. 28 Facebook post There is a scam circulating on Facebook offering Texas Roadhouse meal vouchers and other benefits to our guests who share their posts. This account is attempting to gain access to personal information... If you see a suspicious post in your News Feed offering free vouchers to Texas Roadhouse, please do not click on any links or share with your friends.

False

A second version of the scam invited users to like, share or comment on the post, before clicking on a link and "entering" or "registering" [safe link] for the voucher:Users who clicked on one of those links were directed to various dubious websites (we have archived or made screenshots of these links, so they are safe to click on) where they were instructed to "claim" their prize or "register." Clicking on those links, in turn, brought users to a variety of entirely unrelated websites offering various dubious promotions and gift card offers of their own. The actual Texas Roadhouse chain addressed the scam in a Sept. 28 Facebook post, writing:

FMD_train_1050

Obama-Nelson economic record: Job creation ... at slowest post-recession rate since Great Depression.

05/30/2011

As U.S. Senate candidates in Florida gear up their 2012 campaigns, job creation is a hot topic. Republican and former state legislator Adam Hasner criticizes the Democratic incumbent -- Sen. Bill Nelson -- and President Barack Obama for sluggish job creation.Obama-Nelson economic record. Job creation ... at slowest post-recession rate since Great Depression, Hasner tweeted on May 23, 2011.Many politicians and experts have talked about the jobless recovery -- when the economy rebounds but with lackluster job creation. But we wanted to check whether job creation after the most recent recession has lagged behind job creation after every other recession since the Great Depression?On May 26, Hasner adviser Rick Wilson e-mailed us a May 20USA Todayarticle linked to in the tweet, which stated Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since theGreat Depression. The nation has 5% fewer jobs today a loss of 7 million than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s. In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.We wanted to do our own checking on job recovery.First, we obtained the dates of recessions back to the Great Depression from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan research organization based in Cambridge, Mass.NBER's websitehas a chart listing the dates of the recessions (written as peak and trough). The contraction line is the length of each recession. According to NBER, there have been 13 recessions since the one that started August 1929 and lasted for 43 months, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has month-by-month jobs data for 12 of them. The most recent recession was from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. It's worth noting that although voters may judge Obama on job creation, that recession was well under way before he was elected president in November 2008.We contacted economic experts to ask them about Hasner's claim. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal, labor-backed think tank in Washington, D.C., disagreed with Hasner's claim about job growth: Its not as fast as it could be, but hes wrong, job growth after the early-2000s recession was slower, the slowest on record, she wrote in an e-mail.Shierholz sent us achartshe created based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which on the left side shows percentage job growth over 22 months (because we are now 22 months from the end of the 2007 recession) following a recession for the last four recessions: 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007. The chart shows the most sluggish job creation was following the 2001 recession, when the number of employees on non-farm payroll dropped by 976,000. Economists referred to the period as a job-loss recovery, she said.You are not going to find anything that is slower than early 2000 recession, Shierholz said in an interview.But in the 22 months following the 2007 recession, the number of employees increased by 535,000.And Shierholz sent more in an e-mail: The sluggish jobs recoveries following the last three recessions were due (to) slow output growth caused in large part by the fact that they were, to varying degrees, balance sheet recessions. (Balance sheet recessions are caused by real estate or financial asset bubbles bursting - meaning that people and/or firms have assets that are worth less than their liabilities, so they will opt to pay down their debts rather than invest and consume, which slows growth. )We asked Shierholz about the claim in theUSA Todayarticle on which Hasner based his tweet.TheUSA Todayarticle cited job losses since thestartof the recession -- that's not the same as the post-recession rate that Hasner referred to,afterthe recession was over. It's simply two different ways to look at job losses or growth.The recovery has not been the slowest, Shierholz said of the most recent recession. But she agreed that starting from the beginning of the recession, we are down more jobs ... than any other recession since the Great Depression; that is true.We sent Shierholz's chart to James Sherk of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He suggested measuring from the start of the recession rather than the end otherwise you ignore the severity of a recession. He created his own chart starting from thebeginning of the recession, which shows that the job picture is worse for the most recent recession than the previous three.We e-mailed Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin to ask for a response. He didn't address the accuracy of Hasner's claim comparing job creation after recessions, but argued that Nelson has tried to create jobs by, for example, advocating for high-speed rail in Florida.We sent Shierholz's chart to Wilson and he responded by e-mail: I'm not going to cherry pick obscure economic data: we quoted a sourcedUSA Todaypiece for the matter at hand.Hasner said that job creation has been at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression. Words matter to us, and we think most readers understand post-recession to mean after the recession is over. When counting after the recession, the 2001 recession had a slower job recovery. And Hasner isn't providing a complete picture when he labels this the Obama-Nelson economic record -- the recession started before Obama was elected president and an individual senator can't be blamed for sluggish job recovery any more than Hasner, a former state legislator, can be blamed for unemployment in Florida. Still, Hasner's off by only one recession out of 12. We rate this claim Mostly True.

True

As U.S. Senate candidates in Florida gear up their 2012 campaigns, job creation is a hot topic. Republican and former state legislator Adam Hasner criticizes the Democratic incumbent -- Sen. Bill Nelson -- and President Barack Obama for sluggish job creation.Obama-Nelson economic record. Job creation ... at slowest post-recession rate since Great Depression, Hasner tweeted on May 23, 2011.Many politicians and experts have talked about the jobless recovery -- when the economy rebounds but with lackluster job creation. But we wanted to check whether job creation after the most recent recession has lagged behind job creation after every other recession since the Great Depression?On May 26, Hasner adviser Rick Wilson e-mailed us a May 20USA Todayarticle linked to in the tweet, which stated Nearly two years after the economic recovery officially began, job creation continues to stagger at the slowest post-recession rate since theGreat Depression. The nation has 5% fewer jobs today a loss of 7 million than it did when the recession began in December 2007. That is by far the worst performance of job generation following any of the dozen recessions since the 1930s. In the past, the economy recovered lost jobs 13 months on average after a recession. If this were a typical recovery, nearly 10 million more people would be working today than when the recession officially ended in June 2009.We wanted to do our own checking on job recovery.First, we obtained the dates of recessions back to the Great Depression from the National Bureau of Economic Research, a nonpartisan research organization based in Cambridge, Mass.NBER's websitehas a chart listing the dates of the recessions (written as peak and trough). The contraction line is the length of each recession. According to NBER, there have been 13 recessions since the one that started August 1929 and lasted for 43 months, and the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has month-by-month jobs data for 12 of them.The most recent recession was from December 2007 to June 2009, or 18 months. It's worth noting that although voters may judge Obama on job creation, that recession was well under way before he was elected president in November 2008.We contacted economic experts to ask them about Hasner's claim. Heidi Shierholz, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal, labor-backed think tank in Washington, D.C., disagreed with Hasner's claim about job growth: Its not as fast as it could be, but hes wrong, job growth after the early-2000s recession was slower, the slowest on record, she wrote in an e-mail.Shierholz sent us achartshe created based on data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, which on the left side shows percentage job growth over 22 months (because we are now 22 months from the end of the 2007 recession) following a recession for the last four recessions: 1981, 1990, 2001 and 2007. The chart shows the most sluggish job creation was following the 2001 recession, when the number of employees on non-farm payroll dropped by 976,000. Economists referred to the period as a job-loss recovery, she said.You are not going to find anything that is slower than early 2000 recession, Shierholz said in an interview.But in the 22 months following the 2007 recession, the number of employees increased by 535,000.And Shierholz sent more in an e-mail: The sluggish jobs recoveries following the last three recessions were due (to) slow output growth caused in large part by the fact that they were, to varying degrees, balance sheet recessions. (Balance sheet recessions are caused by real estate or financial asset bubbles bursting - meaning that people and/or firms have assets that are worth less than their liabilities, so they will opt to pay down their debts rather than invest and consume, which slows growth.)We asked Shierholz about the claim in theUSA Todayarticle on which Hasner based his tweet.TheUSA Todayarticle cited job losses since thestartof the recession -- that's not the same as the post-recession rate that Hasner referred to,afterthe recession was over. It's simply two different ways to look at job losses or growth.The recovery has not been the slowest, Shierholz said of the most recent recession. But she agreed that starting from the beginning of the recession, we are down more jobs ... than any other recession since the Great Depression; that is true.We sent Shierholz's chart to James Sherk of the conservative Heritage Foundation. He suggested measuring from the start of the recession rather than the end otherwise you ignore the severity of a recession. He created his own chart starting from thebeginning of the recession, which shows that the job picture is worse for the most recent recession than the previous three.We e-mailed Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin to ask for a response. He didn't address the accuracy of Hasner's claim comparing job creation after recessions, but argued that Nelson has tried to create jobs by, for example, advocating for high-speed rail in Florida.We sent Shierholz's chart to Wilson and he responded by e-mail: I'm not going to cherry pick obscure economic data: we quoted a sourcedUSA Todaypiece for the matter at hand.Hasner said that job creation has been at the slowest post-recession rate since the Great Depression. Words matter to us, and we think most readers understand post-recession to mean after the recession is over. When counting after the recession, the 2001 recession had a slower job recovery. And Hasner isn't providing a complete picture when he labels this the Obama-Nelson economic record -- the recession started before Obama was elected president and an individual senator can't be blamed for sluggish job recovery any more than Hasner, a former state legislator, can be blamed for unemployment in Florida. Still, Hasner's off by only one recession out of 12. We rate this claim Mostly True.

FMD_train_1688

John Kerry's security protection by the Secret Service.

10/02/2004

Claim: If John Kerry were elected President, the Secret Service would have to protect him and every property he owns for the rest of his life. Example: [Collected on the Internet, 2004] You will pay upkeep/Secret Service for 5 Kerry mansions. It is good to be John F. Kerry....... The F stands for Forbes in case you ever wondered. He is one of the richest Senators in Government. When someone is elected president, it means the Secret Service has to protect the President and his family as well as his property. The Kerry's have five US properties not counting the several foreign properties they own too. The cost to run these homes are more than what the average American could afford, even if the rent was free, and all you had to pay the water, gas & electric. Including ground keepers, maintenance, pool, and house keepers. To be President would require the taxpayers to pay for all that now if elected. Including a complete staffed Secret Service security 24 hours a day. In addition to that we will have to pay for each of their homes for security improvements even if they never go to them all there is that just in case. Who do you think will pay for all this? We Pay! This takes all the expense off Kerry and puts it on us. Nevertheless, factor another major cost to Americans that Kerry does not want you to know about. Becoming president would automatically include taking care of all their properties with Secret Service Agents that includes 5 agents per 6 hour shift 4 times a day 365 days of the year for the rest of their lives so long as they own those properties. It comes with being President once you are elected. It requires us the taxpayers, to pay for this as well as his annual salary as well as his retirements including the cost of living adjustments to boot. These salaries and agents protect all their real estate property with Secret Service Agents and pay the bills for the rest of his life. In addition, feed the Secret Service Agents and rotate new ones every 6 hours for the rest of his life. Do the math. Five properties need to be protected. This requires five Secret Service Agents per shift, daily every six hours, per property! That is 20 Secret Service Agents per day per property everyday including Holidays. Wow, what does that cost? Lets say an average of 20 agents per property, each earning a about $60K per agent to survey the perimeters and protect. Now times that by five properties so far. That is if the Kerry's do not buy any more properties afterwards. This also includes the Agents vehicles and repairs, gas, meals, days off, paid vacation, and medical plan visits etc per agent. Who pays? YOU pay, the whole time they are alive after becoming President! Is this the best use of our tax money electing Kerry to take care of all their properties both foreign and domestic? On the other hand, shouldn't he pay for his own? Yet, the Presidential salary could not afford it. The more I think about paying for Kerry's properties everyday, just makes me happy keeping President Bush all the more merrier. Without raising taxes to boot. How on earth would Kerry pay for everyone to have Healthcare, increase our military, and have us pay to protect his investments, all without raising our taxes? Tax and spend Kerry is his party motto. Which really has to make you wonder why anyone with his wealth, would take a salary of that of a U.S. Senator, never mind wanna be President? Do you believe him now why he needs to be the Prez? To serve the people? On the other hand, the people serve Him and his wife! IF YOU AREN'T COMPLETELY APPALLED, THEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN PAYING ATTENTION Origins: The fact that Senator John Kerry's middle name is "Forbes" is about the only piece of information this latest political diatribe gets right. John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate, a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple. The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President. That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents. homes It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life. Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office. protection In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly. The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket. The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States. budget For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001. article Last updated: 2 October 2004 Sources: Burger, Timothy and Kenneth Bazinet. "Hil and Bill Buy 3M Home, Sweet Home in Capital." [New York] Daily News. 30 December 2000 (p. 6). DeFrank, Thomas. "1st Family's N.Y. Bunker." [New York] Daily News. 14 September 1999 (p. 5). Fuchs, Marek. "First Family's Arrival Changes the Focus of Secret Service Office." The New York Times. 29 October 2000 (Weekend Calendar; p. 5). Grove, Lloyd. "The Reliable Source." The Washington Post. 12 January 2001 (p. C3).

False

John Kerry and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry, together own several homes, but since they signed a prenuptial agreement and have kept their premarital assets separate, a Boston townhouse (which John Kerry mortgaged in 2003 to finance his presidential bid) is the only one of these homes that they technically own as a couple. The government is obligated to provide Secret Service protection to the President and his immediate family, so if John Kerry were elected to that office, of course he and his family would be entitled to the same level of security detail that the Secret Service provides to every President. That protection might indeed include the use of public funds to pay the costs of installation and maintenance for security systems at some of the Kerrys' homes, because the protection of First Families is viewed as a right and proper charge upon the nation. Security measures of this level would not be specific to the Kerrys; the homes of all Presidents are treated this way, as (to a lesser extent) are the homes of all former Presidents. It is not true, however, that every single residence owned by the either of the Kerrys (whether it be in America or abroad) would be staffed by five Secret Service agents around the clock, and that those agents would be guarding the Kerrys and all their properties for the rest of John Kerry's life. Secret Service staffing levels vary as the situation requires, and lifetime protection for former Presidents and their spouses was eliminated by Congressional legislation in 1997. President Clinton and his wife, Hillary, are the last First Couple who will receive such a benefit; President George W. Bush and all who succeed him in the White House will be limited to receiving Secret Service protection for a period of not more than 10 years from the time they leave office. In any case, the idea that U.S. voters would have to pay higher taxes if John Kerry were elected President in order to "protect his investments" is just silly. The projected U.S. federal budget for 2005 is $2.4 trillion the amount of money spent to protect the President and his family (whoever that President might be) is but a teeny-tiny fraction of a drop in that vast bucket. The only thing sillier than that notion that taxes would have to be raised to protect a putative President Kerry is the suggestion that the cost of Secret Service protection should be a factor in voters' choosing who should serve as President of the United States.For more information about the protection afforded former Presidents, see our article about a similar rumor that was attached to the previous First Couple when President Bill Clinton left office in 2001.

FMD_train_37

Did Putin Acknowledge Biden's Win Before Mitch McConnell?

12/15/2020

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here On Dec. 15, 2020 the day after the U.S. Electoral College confirmed Joe Biden as America's 46th President the tweet displayed below alleged Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Biden's victory over President Donald Trump before U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did. U.S. Electoral College Joe Biden tweet Donald Trump The claim was accurate, and we unpack why below. It followed weeks of both leaders' remaining quiet on the election's outcome amid court battles and an aggressive misinformation campaign by Trump to try to overturn his loss. misinformation campaign Let us lay out the timeline. At 10:20 a.m. Moscow standard time, which is 2:20 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) in the U.S., on Dec. 15, the Kremlin released a statement in which Putin congratulated Biden on winning the presidential race and wished him "every success." The statement read: released a statement In his message, Vladimir Putin wished the President-elect every success and expressed confidence that Russia and the United States, which bear special responsibility for global security and stability, can, despite their differences, effectively contribute to solving many problems and meeting challenges that the world is facing today. The President of Russia noted that with this in mind, Russian-American cooperation, based on the principles of equality and mutual respect, would meet the interests of both nations and the entire international community. 'For my part, I am ready for interaction and contacts with you,' Russias Head of State stressed. Hours later, McConnell, a Republican, acknowledged the victory for Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris for the first time in a prepared speech on the Senate floor. Kamala Harris According to a video of the remarks on the Majority Leader's YouTube channel footage that was uploaded to the video platform around 11 a.m. EST and also appeared on his official website as a Kentucky senator McConnell said: official website as a Kentucky senator The Electoral College has spoken. So today, I want to congratulate President-elect Joe Biden. The President-elect is no stranger to the Senate. He has devoted himself to public service for many years. I also congratulate the Vice President-elect, our colleague from California, Senator Harris. Beyond our differences, all Americans can take pride that our nation has a female Vice President-elect for the first time. News outlets, including MSNBC, first reported on McConnell's remarks around 10:20 a.m. (ET). A tweet from McConnell's press team with a link to the YouTube video posted less than 30 minutes later, at 10:47 a.m. tweet Some onlookers on social media speculated McConnell purposefully waited for Putin's statement on the election before making his own. "It has always been Putin pulling their strings, not Trump," one Twitter user alleged, referring to Republican leadership. Twitter user But there was no evidence to explicitly explain why or under what rationale the senator made his comments on the Senate floor, congratulating Biden more than a month after he was announced the next head of the White House. Also unknown was if or to what extent he at all considered Putin's statement hours prior signifying a new chapter in U.S.-Russia relations. All of that said, the Kentucky Republican recognized a Biden presidency roughly eight hours after the Russian leader. For that reason, we rate 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 Dec. 15, 2020 the day after the U.S. Electoral College confirmed Joe Biden as America's 46th President the tweet displayed below alleged Russian President Vladimir Putin acknowledged Biden's victory over President Donald Trump before U.S. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell did.The claim was accurate, and we unpack why below. It followed weeks of both leaders' remaining quiet on the election's outcome amid court battles and an aggressive misinformation campaign by Trump to try to overturn his loss.Let us lay out the timeline. At 10:20 a.m. Moscow standard time, which is 2:20 a.m. Eastern Standard Time (EST) in the U.S., on Dec. 15, the Kremlin released a statement in which Putin congratulated Biden on winning the presidential race and wished him "every success." The statement read:Hours later, McConnell, a Republican, acknowledged the victory for Biden and Vice President-elect Kamala Harris for the first time in a prepared speech on the Senate floor.According to a video of the remarks on the Majority Leader's YouTube channel footage that was uploaded to the video platform around 11 a.m. EST and also appeared on his official website as a Kentucky senator McConnell said:News outlets, including MSNBC, first reported on McConnell's remarks around 10:20 a.m. (ET). A tweet from McConnell's press team with a link to the YouTube video posted less than 30 minutes later, at 10:47 a.m.Some onlookers on social media speculated McConnell purposefully waited for Putin's statement on the election before making his own. "It has always been Putin pulling their strings, not Trump," one Twitter user alleged, referring to Republican leadership.But there was no evidence to explicitly explain why or under what rationale the senator made his comments on the Senate floor, congratulating Biden more than a month after he was announced the next head of the White House. Also unknown was if or to what extent he at all considered Putin's statement hours prior signifying a new chapter in U.S.-Russia relations.

FMD_train_566

Was there a decrease of $102 billion in the National Debt 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_1407

Does a Video Show the Effects of Drinking 24 Cans of Red Bull?

07/21/2015

In mid-July 2015 a video began making the online rounds, accompanied by claims that it depicted a man who had consumed 24 cans of Red Bull energy drink in a short period of time. (One 250ml can of Red Bull contains about 80mg of caffeine, while a typical cup of brewed coffee has about 95 to 200 mg of caffeine.) video coffee WARNING The outcome of drinking 24 cans of RED BULL quickly The "24 cans of Red Bull" was a familiar trope in mid-2015 due to recent reports in the UK press that a 31-year-old British woman had managed, through the help of hypnosis, to kick a 24-can-a-day Red Bull habit that was having profound effects on her health (and finances): reports A mother-of-four whose addiction to Red Bull saw her drinking 24 cans of a day claims she has been cured of her habit by hypnosis. Sarah Weatherill, 31, became so dependent on the energy drink she was told if she cut down too quickly she could suffer a seizure as her body was so used to the caffeine. The law student spent a staggering 5,460 every year on the popular energy drink since she became hooked in 2009. Her habit was at its worst the following year when she was studying for a law degree and wanted to stay awake to revise for exams. She soon became dependent on the drink and couldn't get out of bed unless she knew she had some in the fridge. She also became lethargic, depressed, had heart palpitations and was constantly feeling anxious as her 105-a-week habit spiralled out of control. She finally decided to do something about the problem after she realised the constant need for the Red Bull was severely damaging her health. However, the video shown above has nothing to do with the effects of consuming large quantities of caffeine or energy drinks. What it depicts is a flail chest, a condition usually seen after automobile accidents or other forms of blunt trauma, when a segment of the rib cage breaks and becomes detached from the rest of the chest wall. In flail chest patients, pressure changes associated with respiration that the rib cage normally resists produce the motion seen in the video above, as demonstrated here: flail chest During normal expiration, the diaphragm and intercostal muscles relax increasing internal pressure, allowing the abdominal organs to push air upwards and out of the thorax. However, a flail segment will also be pushed out while the rest of the rib cage contracts. Although we haven't identified the precise source of this video, it's said to have captured the victim of an automobile accident being treated by emergency medical personnel shortly before his death.

False

In mid-July 2015 a video began making the online rounds, accompanied by claims that it depicted a man who had consumed 24 cans of Red Bull energy drink in a short period of time. (One 250ml can of Red Bull contains about 80mg of caffeine, while a typical cup of brewed coffee has about 95 to 200 mg of caffeine.)The "24 cans of Red Bull" was a familiar trope in mid-2015 due to recent reports in the UK press that a 31-year-old British woman had managed, through the help of hypnosis, to kick a 24-can-a-day Red Bull habit that was having profound effects on her health (and finances):However, the video shown above has nothing to do with the effects of consuming large quantities of caffeine or energy drinks. What it depicts is a flail chest, a condition usually seen after automobile accidents or other forms of blunt trauma, when a segment of the rib cage breaks and becomes detached from the rest of the chest wall. In flail chest patients, pressure changes associated with respiration that the rib cage normally resists produce the motion seen in the video above, as demonstrated here:

FMD_train_1868

In the American Rescue Plan, just about 1% of the money is for vaccines.

02/26/2021

Republicans primary objection to the COVID-19 and economic stimulus bill making its way through Congress is that it spends relatively little on the disease itself. In a speech on the Senate floor, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the $1.9 trillion package known as theAmerican Rescue Planwas loaded with pet projects that had nothing to do with the pandemic or economic recovery. All kinds of liberal wish list items that would do nothing to help American families put COVID behind them, McConnell saidFeb. 24. Just about 1% of the money is for vaccines. McConnells focus on 1% for vaccines caught our attention. His staff said he drew on the words of the Democrats themselves when they unveiled a key section of the sweeping bill. The chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., highlighted a handful of items in the packagein a news release, including $14 billion for vaccines, $46 billion for testing, contact tracing, and mitigation, and $25 billion to reduce health disparities across the country. The nonpartisanCongressional Budget Officeand theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budgetuse the $14 billion figure. However, there are different ways to add up the numbers. The same Democratic-controlled committee that provided the $14 billion figure came out a few days later with a factsheet thatuses an amountof $20 billion. And they note theres an additional $5 billion for advanced vaccine development. The different totals depend on what counts as vaccine spending. The lower figure in the first Democratic press release included only work at the CDC, the FDA, and ensuring a reliable supply chain to produce and administer the vaccine. The higher Democratic tally included other activities, such as sequencing the genome of virus variants and paying for health care workers to administer the vaccine. How much does this matter? In percentage terms, not that much. Even a total of $25 billion still amounts to just over 1% of the bills estimated price tag. Thats because the overall package includes big ticket items such as$422 billionin stimulus checks to individuals, $350 billion for state and local governments, and$242 billionfor expanded unemployment benefits. But in terms of dollars, theres a big difference between $14 billion and $20 billion or $25 billion. The point is, its possible to use percentages to make an amount appear small, and actual dollars to make the same amount look substantial. The most heated debate in Congress centers on how the American Rescue Plan deals with the economic damage of the pandemic. McConnells claim has more to do with the money aimed most directly at the virus and pandemic itself. In that vein, focussing strictly on vaccines leaves out a lot of the picture. The biggest overlooked piece is $46 billion for testing and other surveillance work. That work is as important as any other, said Amesh Adalja at the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security. Better surveillance helps target vaccine distribution to certain states or communities, and is part of spotting virus mutations to improve the next generation of vaccines. There is a continuum and integration between all response activities, Adajla said. Those include testing, tracing, isolating and vaccinating. Vaccines have to make their way into peoples arms, and the legislation funds several programs to support that work, including $7.6 billion to hire 100,000 community health workers. We found different ways to add up all the spending tied directly to COVID-19. On the low end, the total is about$100 billion. On the high end, theWhite Housesays it is $160 billion, which adds items such as$10 billionin medical supplies, $24 billion in child care for health care and other essential workers, and literally dozens of smaller amounts. Depending on which line items you include, the legislation would spend anywhere from 4.5% to 8.5% of the total cost directly on the pandemics health aspects. McConnell said that in the American Rescue Plan, just about 1% of the money is for vaccines. Based on Democratic figures of either $14 billion or $20 billion for vaccines, and a $1.9 trillion overall price tag, the math is about right. The American Rescue Plan spends much more on the financial damage caused by the virus than on its health aspects alone, and McConnell picked a way to minimize the health-related spending. The statistic omits a much greater amount of spending on overall efforts to contain the pandemic. That ranges from about $100 billion to $160 billion, or between 5% and 8% of the bills total cost. His statement is accurate, but needs additional information. Thats our definition of Mostly True.

True

In a speech on the Senate floor, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell said the $1.9 trillion package known as theAmerican Rescue Planwas loaded with pet projects that had nothing to do with the pandemic or economic recovery.All kinds of liberal wish list items that would do nothing to help American families put COVID behind them, McConnell saidFeb. 24. Just about 1% of the money is for vaccines.The chair of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-N.J., highlighted a handful of items in the packagein a news release, including $14 billion for vaccines, $46 billion for testing, contact tracing, and mitigation, and $25 billion to reduce health disparities across the country.The nonpartisanCongressional Budget Officeand theCommittee for a Responsible Federal Budgetuse the $14 billion figure.The same Democratic-controlled committee that provided the $14 billion figure came out a few days later with a factsheet thatuses an amountof $20 billion. And they note theres an additional $5 billion for advanced vaccine development.In percentage terms, not that much. Even a total of $25 billion still amounts to just over 1% of the bills estimated price tag. Thats because the overall package includes big ticket items such as$422 billionin stimulus checks to individuals, $350 billion for state and local governments, and$242 billionfor expanded unemployment benefits.We found different ways to add up all the spending tied directly to COVID-19. On the low end, the total is about$100 billion. On the high end, theWhite Housesays it is $160 billion, which adds items such as$10 billionin medical supplies, $24 billion in child care for health care and other essential workers, and literally dozens of smaller amounts.

FMD_train_401

John McCain's Definition of 'Rich'

09/13/2008

Claim: John McCain said he would define the income level that divides the middle class from the rich as $5 million. Example: [Collected via e-mail, September 2008] I have heard many times that John McCain said (paraphrasing his comment, I'm sure) that the middle class includes people who make under $5 million. I am trying to find that in print to forward to relatives who say it is untrue. Origins: On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed by Pastor Rick Warren. During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording). To Democratic candidate Barack Obama, Pastor Warren said: "OK. Taxes, this is a real simple question. Define rich. I mean give me a number. Is it $50,000, $100,000, $200,000? Everybody keeps talking about who we're going to tax. How can you define that?" Senator Obama didn't quite answer the question directly, saying that an income level of less than $150,000 per year was middle class and that his tax plan would call for a "modest increase" in taxes for those making more than $250,000 per year: "Look, here's how I think about it. And this is reflected in my tax plan. If you are making $150,000 a year or less, as a family, then you're middle class or you may be poor. But $150,000 down, you're basically middle class; it obviously depends on the region where you're living. I would argue that if you're making more than $250,000, then you're in the top three percent, four percent of this country. You're doing well. Now, these things are all relative. And I'm not suggesting that everybody making over $250,000 is living on easy street. But the question that I think we have to ask ourselves is, if we believe in good schools, if we believe in good roads, if we want to make sure that kids can go to college, if we don't want to leave a mountain of debt for the next generation, then we've got to pay for these things; they don't come for free, and it is irresponsible. I believe it is irresponsible intergenerationally for us to invest or for us to spend $10 billion a month on a war and not have a way of paying for it. That, I think, is unacceptable. So nobody likes to pay taxes. I haven't sold 25 million books, but I've been selling some books lately, and so I write a pretty big check to Uncle Sam. Nobody likes it. What I can say is under the approach I'm taking, if you make $150,000 or less, you will see a tax cut. If you're making $250,000 a year or more, you're going to see a modest increase. What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code. One thing I think we can all agree on is that it should be simpler so that you don't have all these loopholes and big stacks of stuff that you've got to comb through, which wastes a huge amount of money and allows special interests to take advantage of things that ordinary people cannot take advantage of. To Republican candidate John McCain, Pastor Warren said: "Ok, on taxes, define 'rich.' Everybody talks about taxing the rich, but not the poor, the middle class. At what point—give me a number, give me a specific number—do you move from middle class to rich? Is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000? How does anybody know if we don't know what the standards are?" Senator McCain responded by stating that he didn't think "rich" should be solely defined by income level and that the question was moot because he wanted to cut spending rather than increase taxes on the rich; along the way, he mentioned an income level of $5 million (immediately noting that "I'm sure that comment will be distorted"): "Some of the richest people I've ever known in my life are the most unhappy. I think that rich should be defined by a home, a good job, an education, and the ability to hand to our children a more prosperous and safer world than the one that we inherited. I don't want to take any money from the rich—I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of wealth. But I can tell you, for example, there are small businessmen and women who are working 16 hours a day, seven days a week that some people would classify as 'rich,' my friends, and want to raise their taxes and want to raise their payroll taxes. Let's keep taxes low. Let's give every family in America a $7,000 tax credit for every child they have. Let's give them a $5,000 refundable tax credit to go out and get the health insurance of their choice. Let's not have the government take over the health care system in America. So, I think if you are just talking about income, how about $5 million? But seriously, I don't think you can—I don't think seriously that the point I'm trying to make here, seriously—and I'm sure that comment will be distorted—but the point is that we want to keep people's taxes low and increase revenues. And, my friend, it was not taxes that mattered in America in the last several years. It was spending. Spending got completely out of control. We spent money in a way that mortgaged our kids' futures. Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.) Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one. Economists said in interviews that neither candidate was wrong because there are no agreed-upon definitions for the terms that describe income segments. "To be fair to both of them, 'rich' is an adjective," said James P. Smith, a senior economist at the Rand Corp., a nonpartisan think tank in Santa Monica. "Economic science is not going to tell you that 'this' is the cutoff point." Yet the $5 million level, Smith said, includes "almost nobody." Experts said that of all the households in the nation, fewer than one-tenth of 1% had an annual income of $5 million or more. Ken Goldstein, an economist for the Conference Board, a business-research group based in New York, said he would define rich as income of about $500,000 or more. "If you set the bar at half a million, you're talking about the top 1% of taxpayers. If you think about the last eight years, those are the folks who have benefited the most." Other economists said they would have gone with a lower figure. Even the moderator who asked the question of the candidates, Pastor Rick Warren of Orange County's Saddleback Church, did not seem to anticipate a reply beyond the lower six figures, urging each man to "give me a specific number ... is it $100,000, is it $50,000, is it $200,000?" Most ordinary Americans tend to massage the definitions of such terms in an attempt to crowd themselves into what many consider the least offensive category. "If you do surveys, 95% of people think they are middle class," said Len Burman, director of the Tax Policy Center, a nonpartisan group that has analyzed the candidates' tax proposals. "This includes people who are objectively quite poor and people who are objectively quite rich." Burman added: "I guess it says something nice about America that rich people don't want to act like they're better than anybody else and poor people don't like complaining about how tough it is to pay their bills." Economists tend to spend more time debating the definition of poor, in large part because that cutoff has consequences for an array of social programs designed to assist those whose incomes fall below the poverty line. Last updated: 13 September 2008. Sources: Miller, Greg. "Who's Rich? McCain and Obama Have Very Different Definitions." Los Angeles Times. 18 August 2008. Montopoli, Brian. "DNC Looks to Exploit McCain's '$5 Million' Comment." CBSNews.com. 19 August 2008. Reuters. "Obama Rips McCain for $5 Million 'Rich' Definition." 18 August 2008.

True

Origins: On 16 August 2008, presidential candidates Barack Obama and John McCain made back-to-back appearances at the Presidential Candidates Forum held at the Saddleback Church in Lake Forest, California, where they responded to questions posed to them by Pastor Rick Warren. During that forum, Pastor Warren asked both candidates to define "rich" for the purposes of taxation (although, since the candidates appeared separately, the question was not posed to both of them with the same wording).Although this item is "true" in the strictly literal sense that John McCain did make the remark attributed to him, how much importance to place upon it is a subjective issue. Predictably, Democrats painted Senator McCain's remarks as indicative of his being out of touch with ordinary Americans and desirous of giving tax breaks to the rich, while the McCain campaign dismissed the candidate's statement as an obvious joke. (A Democratic National Committee video spotlighted Senator McCain's "$5 million" statement while omitting the remarks that surrounded it; the full exchange in context can be viewed here.) Meanwhile, economists asked to comment on the issue observed that the definition of "rich" is a murky one, and that the dividing line between "poor" and "middle class" (rather than between "middle class" and "rich") is probably the more significant one:

FMD_train_1808

Did Libertarian Candidate Jo Jorgensen Lose 40K Votes in 10 Minutes in Pennsylvania?

11/06/2020

Voting in the 2020 U.S. Election may be over, but the misinformation keeps on ticking. Never stop fact-checking. Follow our post-election coverage here. here A viral post shared across multiple platforms has been used as evidence that U.S. presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen, who ran in the 2020 election on the Libertarian ticket, lost an implausible number of votes in an implausible amount of time. The sole evidence for the assertion comes from a pair of smartphone screen captures allegedly showing a Google search panel for Pennsylvania returns separated by 12 minutes. multiple platforms The images suggest that Jorgensen went from 89,025 when 56% of the vote had been counted to 46,987 when the count reached 59%. Snopes could not verify the origin or authenticity of the screenshot but it remains the only evidence in support of the assertion. At no point that we are aware of did Jorgensen ever have a reported number over 80,000 votes in the state. The shift from 56% reporting to 59% reporting occurred early in election night when in-person votes were being tallied. If it were a data entry error, as has been documented in other instances in this election, it would have represented the addition of votes, not the subtraction of them. At the time of this reporting (Nov. 6), with an estimated 99% of vote counted, the same Google widget shows Jorgensen with 77,091 votes. early instances Due to the lack of corroborating evidence, we rank this claim

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.A viral post shared across multiple platforms has been used as evidence that U.S. presidential candidate Jo Jorgensen, who ran in the 2020 election on the Libertarian ticket, lost an implausible number of votes in an implausible amount of time. The sole evidence for the assertion comes from a pair of smartphone screen captures allegedly showing a Google search panel for Pennsylvania returns separated by 12 minutes.At no point that we are aware of did Jorgensen ever have a reported number over 80,000 votes in the state. The shift from 56% reporting to 59% reporting occurred early in election night when in-person votes were being tallied. If it were a data entry error, as has been documented in other instances in this election, it would have represented the addition of votes, not the subtraction of them. At the time of this reporting (Nov. 6), with an estimated 99% of vote counted, the same Google widget shows Jorgensen with 77,091 votes.

FMD_train_1259

The Russian ruble is already depreciating.

03/02/2014

American and European leaders find themselves scrambling to respond to Russias deployment of troops in the Crimean Peninsula of Ukraine. With military action on no ones wish-list, diplomacy and economic sanctions are the only moves effectively in play. Secretary of State John Kerry said on CBSFace the Nationthat he had been on the phone with his counterparts among the G-8 nations. Every single one of them are prepared to go to the hilt in order to isolate Russia with respect to this invasion, Kerry said. Theyre prepared to put sanctions in place, theyre prepared to isolate Russia economically, the ruble is already going down. Russia has major economic challenges. This fact-check zeros in on the value of the Russian ruble. It has declined but partly because thats what the Russians wanted. A big drop In the early part of 2013, the ruble was worth 3.3 U.S. cents. Today, its value has tumbled by 15 percent, to 2.8 cents. A little less than half of that fall came in January as the situation in Ukraine deteriorated. Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com: There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine. But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check. The ruble got pretty over-valued in the big energy boom from 2001-08, said Mark Adomanis, a management consultant and contributor to Forbes. That hurt Russian manufacturing and letting the ruble fall potentially could help. With a weaker ruble Russian goods become more competitive on international markets, Adomanis said. That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same. Our ruling Kerry said the ruble is going down, and it is. The Russian currency has lost about 15 percent of its value against the dollar since early 2013. It is not all because of the situation in Ukraine, however, a fact that viewers may not have picked up on by hearing Kerry's statement. The currencys decline is also part of Russian policy to reduce inflation and make domestic manufacturers more competitive. Theres a little more going on here than Kerrys statement would suggest. We rate his claim Mostly True.

True

Heres the picture over the past year, taken from the currency exchange serviceXE.com:There is no question that the violence and political turmoil in Ukraine took a toll on the ruble. Russian banks have about $28 billion in loans in the country. Before the Russian troops moved in, investors were already worried. Last week,two of the largest banks in Russiasaid they would suspend any new lending in Ukraine.But the rubles decline has deeper roots. In 2010, the Russian Central Bank announced it wanted to get out of the business of setting the rubles value on the international market. It had in mind a gradual glide path for the currencys fall, andin October, it gave the ruble even more leewayto drop further. The countrys economy grew less than 2 percent last year, and it has struggled to keep inflation in check.That said, a free fall is not what the Russian Central Bank has in mind. In January,the bank signaled that it would stepin to prop up the ruble. But the overall policy remains the same.

FMD_train_1733

Dell Hospital Facebook Appeal

05/11/2015

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

False

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

FMD_train_191

Are Doctors and Hospitals Paid More for COVID-19 Patients?

04/17/2020

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 mid-April 2020, social media users shared a meme implying that hospitals had a financial incentive to inflate the number of COVID-19 patients they were admitting in the midst of the ongoing COVID-19 coronavirus disease pandemic. The meme contained red text that said, "So, hospitals get an extra $13,000 if they diagnose a death as COVID-19 and an additional $39,000 if they use a ventilator!" and prompted readers to ask Snopes.com to verify whether the statement is true:The idea that hospitals are getting paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses and $39,000 more if those patients are placed on ventilators appears to have originated with an interview given on the Fox News prime-time program "Ingraham Angle" by Dr. Scott Jensen, a physician who also serves as a Republican state senator in Minnesota. During the April 9, 2020 interview, Jensen suggested to host Laura Ingraham that he believed the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. was being artificially inflated. "The idea that were going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because were going to undermine the (public) trust," he said. interview suggested Ingraham then played footage from a press conference with comments from Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, in which Fauci called claims that the number of coronavirus cases are being "padded" a conspiracy theory. In an exchange that followed, Jensen suggested that Medicare, the national health care plan for the elderly, was paying hospitals set amounts for each patient diagnosed and treated for COVID-19: INGRAHAM: Dr. Fauci was asked about the COVID death count today. Here's what he said, in part. [Cut to briefing] REPORTER: What do you say to those folks who are making the claim without really any evidence that these deaths are being padded, that the number of COVID-19 deaths are being padded? FAUCI: You will always have conspiracy theories when you have very challenging public health crises. They are nothing but distractions. [Cut back to Ingraham] INGRAHAM: Conspiracy theories, doctor? So you're engaging in conspiracy theories. What do you say to Dr. Fauci tonight? JENSEN: Well I would remind him that any time health care intersects with dollars it gets awkward. Right now Medicare has determined that if you have a COVID-19 admission to the hospital, you'll get paid $13,000. If that COVID-19 patient goes on a ventilator, you get $39,000, three times as much. Nobody can tell me after 35 years in the world of medicine that sometimes those kinds of things impact on what we do. We attempted to reach Jensen by phone and email, but did not get a response in time for publication. We also reached out to the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to ask whether the statement that Medicare was paying hospitals $13,000 and $39,000, respectively, for patients admitted with COVID-19 diagnoses and patients with the disease who are placed on ventilators. A spokesperson for CMS told us that whether hospitals are paid by Medicare for care of a COVID-19 patient would depend on whether that patient was covered by Medicare insurance. CMS also told us there is no set or predetermined amount paid to hospitals for diagnosing and treating COVID-19 patients, and the amounts would depend on a variety of factors driven by the needs of each patient. Pay-outs would also depend on the variance of the costs of medical care in different regions. The closest match for the numbers cited by Jensen we could locate was in an April 7, 2020, article published by the health care nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. As a starting point to estimate how much hospitals might get paid by the federal government for treating uninsured COVID-19 patients, the article used average payments for hospital admissions for similar conditions in 2017: article For less severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for respiratory infections and inflammations with major comorbidities or complications in 2017, which was $13,297. For more severe hospitalizations, we use the average Medicare payment for a respiratory system diagnosis with ventilator support for greater than 96 hours, which was $40,218. But while these industry estimates are similar to the numbers Jensen cited, they do not represent actual Medicare payments to hospitals for COVID-19 diagnoses or treatment, or even a national average of such payments. We therefore rate this claim "Mixture." While it seems plausible that Medicare disbursements to hospitals treating COVID-19 patients could be in the range given by Jensen in the Fox News interview (if those patients are covered by Medicare), we found no evidence to support Jensen's assertion that "Medicare has determined" that hospitals will be paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses or $39,000 for COVID-19 patients place on ventilators. Gillum, Jack, et al."Theres Been a Spike in People Dying at Home in Several Cities. That Suggests Coronavirus Deaths Are Higher Than Reported." ProPublica.14 April 2020. WNBC TV."Massive Spike in NYC Cardiac Arrest Deaths Seen as Sign of COVID-19 Undercounting." 10 April 2020. Brown, Emma, et al."Which Deaths Count Toward the COVID-19 Death Toll? It Depends on the State." The Washington Post.16 April 2020. Levitt, Larry, et al."Estimated Cost of Treating the Uninsured Hospitalized with COVID-19." Kaiser Family Foundation.7 April 2020. Fox News."Dr. Jensen Calls Out 'Ridiculous' CDC Guidelines for Coronavirus-Related Deaths." 9 April 2020.

NEI

Snopes is still fighting an infodemic of rumors and misinformation surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, and you can help. Find out what we've learned and how to inoculate yourself against COVID-19 misinformation. Read the latest fact checks about the vaccines. Submit any questionable rumors and advice you encounter. Become a Founding Member to help us hire more fact-checkers. And, please, follow the CDC or WHO for guidance on protecting your community from the disease. The meme contained red text that said, "So, hospitals get an extra $13,000 if they diagnose a death as COVID-19 and an additional $39,000 if they use a ventilator!" and prompted readers to ask Snopes.com to verify whether the statement is true:The idea that hospitals are getting paid $13,000 for patients with COVID-19 diagnoses and $39,000 more if those patients are placed on ventilators appears to have originated with an interview given on the Fox News prime-time program "Ingraham Angle" by Dr. Scott Jensen, a physician who also serves as a Republican state senator in Minnesota.During the April 9, 2020 interview, Jensen suggested to host Laura Ingraham that he believed the number of COVID-19 cases in the U.S. was being artificially inflated. "The idea that were going to allow people to massage and sort of game the numbers is a real issue because were going to undermine the (public) trust," he said.The closest match for the numbers cited by Jensen we could locate was in an April 7, 2020, article published by the health care nonprofit Kaiser Family Foundation. As a starting point to estimate how much hospitals might get paid by the federal government for treating uninsured COVID-19 patients, the article used average payments for hospital admissions for similar conditions in 2017:

FMD_train_256

The (Wisconsin) governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations.

02/22/2011

The budget crisis in Wisconsin has spurred a national discussion on spending priorities, including among the commentators on ABC'sThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Amanpour asked her guests if the plans in Wisconsin were shared sacrifice.Where is the sacrifice going to be borne the most? And is it equitable? Amanpour asked.Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, said it wasnt.Just like the tea party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, No more, no more budget cuts on the back of working people, Brazile said. The governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations.We're trying to balance the budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class, and that's why workers are standing up for their rights, she said a little later in the program.The word giveaway is a loaded term for tax cuts, but we feel its fair to fact-check whether Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed tax breaks for corporations while advocating budget cuts for public workers.Walkers budget proposal asks state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance, which reduces take-home pay. But it also sets significant limits on collective bargaining power formost public sector unions, which has enraged union members and sparked protests at the state capitol.We next looked to see if Walker has proposed tax cuts for corporations.We found Walker has already signed bills that cut taxes for corporations.Walker signed a law on Jan. 31 that says that companies that relocate to Wisconsin will not have to pay corporate taxes for two years. The law stipulates that the company must move at least 51 percent of the workers on its payroll or at least those who account for $200,000 in wages. Walker also signed into law a bill that gives small tax breaks to companies that create jobs. Its debatable whether these could fairly be considered giveaways, since they are intended to reward companies for creating jobs.But Walker proposed additional tax breaks for business during the campaign for governor. PolitiFact Wisconsin documented those promises on PolitiFacts Walk-O-Meter, a database of Walkers campaign promises. That includesreducing taxes on employersand repealing the combined reporting requirement for business taxes, a measure that increased tax revenues and was approved in 2009.If you elect me as your next governor, Ill get government out of the way and lower the tax burden so Wisconsin business owners and factories can create 250,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses in our state by 2015, said Walker during the campaign.We also found that Walker told the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce during the campaign thathe supportedefforts to repeal the corporate income tax. Though its a fine distinction, we should note that we were not able to find statements from Walker proposing a repeal, so its not a promise listed in the Walk-O-Meter database.Brazile said, The (Wisconsin) governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations. The tax breaks he signed into law were linked to job growth, which means they were not necessarily giveaways. But he has proposed lower taxes for all businesses. And hes supported those tax cuts even in the face of a tight budget, saying they would lead to job growth. Because Brazile gets Walkers basic position on business taxes right -- he wants them lower -- we rate her statement Mostly True.

True

The budget crisis in Wisconsin has spurred a national discussion on spending priorities, including among the commentators on ABC'sThis Week with Christiane Amanpour.Amanpour asked her guests if the plans in Wisconsin were shared sacrifice.Where is the sacrifice going to be borne the most? And is it equitable? Amanpour asked.Donna Brazile, a Democratic strategist, said it wasnt.Just like the tea party went out there and grabbed the microphone, what you have is grassroots people out there saying, No more, no more budget cuts on the back of working people, Brazile said. The governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations.We're trying to balance the budgets on the backs of the poor and the middle class, and that's why workers are standing up for their rights, she said a little later in the program.The word giveaway is a loaded term for tax cuts, but we feel its fair to fact-check whether Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker has proposed tax breaks for corporations while advocating budget cuts for public workers.Walkers budget proposal asks state workers to pay more for their pensions and health insurance, which reduces take-home pay. But it also sets significant limits on collective bargaining power formost public sector unions, which has enraged union members and sparked protests at the state capitol.We next looked to see if Walker has proposed tax cuts for corporations.We found Walker has already signed bills that cut taxes for corporations.Walker signed a law on Jan. 31 that says that companies that relocate to Wisconsin will not have to pay corporate taxes for two years. The law stipulates that the company must move at least 51 percent of the workers on its payroll or at least those who account for $200,000 in wages. Walker also signed into law a bill that gives small tax breaks to companies that create jobs. Its debatable whether these could fairly be considered giveaways, since they are intended to reward companies for creating jobs.But Walker proposed additional tax breaks for business during the campaign for governor. PolitiFact Wisconsin documented those promises on PolitiFacts Walk-O-Meter, a database of Walkers campaign promises. That includesreducing taxes on employersand repealing the combined reporting requirement for business taxes, a measure that increased tax revenues and was approved in 2009.If you elect me as your next governor, Ill get government out of the way and lower the tax burden so Wisconsin business owners and factories can create 250,000 jobs and 10,000 businesses in our state by 2015, said Walker during the campaign.We also found that Walker told the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce during the campaign thathe supportedefforts to repeal the corporate income tax. Though its a fine distinction, we should note that we were not able to find statements from Walker proposing a repeal, so its not a promise listed in the Walk-O-Meter database.Brazile said, The (Wisconsin) governor has proposed tax giveaways to corporations. The tax breaks he signed into law were linked to job growth, which means they were not necessarily giveaways. But he has proposed lower taxes for all businesses. And hes supported those tax cuts even in the face of a tight budget, saying they would lead to job growth. Because Brazile gets Walkers basic position on business taxes right -- he wants them lower -- we rate her statement Mostly True.

FMD_train_1481

West Virginia has the nations lowest workforce participation rate, which hovers around 50 percent, when the national average is about 63 percent.

02/27/2019

Is workforce participation lower in West Virginia than in any state? Thats what West Virginia University president Gordon Gee wrote in a recentop-ed. Gees Jan. 14 column in the State Journal newspaper was titled, An effective education system is key to West Virginias future. In the column, Gee wrote, As I often point out, our state does not have a job problem. It has a skills problem that leaves many high-paying jobs unfilled. We have the nations lowest workforce participation rate, which hovers around 50 percent, when the national average is about 63 percent. Is this claim accurate? We took a closer look. Economists say the most appropriate statistic in this case is the civilian labor force participation rate, which is calculated on a regular basis by the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. Thestatistictakes the number of people who are employed, adds it to the number of unemployed people who are looking for work, and divides the sum by the total population that is at least 16 years of age, not serving on active duty in the military, and not institutionalized in a facility such as a prison or a long-term-care home. The most recentdataavailable from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from December 2018, showed that West Virginia had a civilian labor force participation rate of 53.9 percent. The figure didnt deviate much throughout 2018, ranging from 53.7 percent to 54 percent depending on the month. The past five years also looked similar to 2018. The average workforce participation rate in 2018 was 53.9 percent. In 2017 it was 53.3 percent, in 2016 it was 53.1 percent, in 2015 it was 52.8 percent, and in 2014 it was 53.1 percent. He would have been a little closer using a similar, but distinct, statistic known as the employment-population ratio. This statistic takes the number of employed people and divides it by the same overall population used in the civilian labor force participation rate. In West Virginia, that was 51.2 percent in December 2018, and was close to that during 2018. So for this part of his statement, Gee was close, and he did say around 50 percent, which gives him some wiggle room. West Virginia did indeed have the lowest civilian labor force participation rate in the nation in December 2018. The next-closest state was Mississippi, with 55.8 percent. And the pattern was much the same for the rest of 2018. In fact, West Virginia has remained in the lowest spot since the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics began reporting the series on a consistent basis in 1976, said Brian Lego, research assistant professor at West Virginia Universitys Bureau of Business and Economic Research. Thenational civilian labor force participation ratewas 63.1 percent in December 2018, after rising from a low of 62.7 percent earlier in the year. So Gee is on target with his statement that the national rate was about 63 percent. Lego said there are a range of factors that explain the states weak performance. The big picture reasons are related to human capital deficiencies such as lack of skills needed for jobs available, he said. He also cited poor health, drug abuse, and a large number of elderly residents in West Virginia. Gee said, We have the nations lowest workforce participation rate, which hovers around 50 percent, when the national average is about 63 percent. He was very close on all three elements of the statement, and he gave himself some breathing room by using the words around and about. We rate his statement True.

True

Is workforce participation lower in West Virginia than in any state? Thats what West Virginia University president Gordon Gee wrote in a recentop-ed.Thestatistictakes the number of people who are employed, adds it to the number of unemployed people who are looking for work, and divides the sum by the total population that is at least 16 years of age, not serving on active duty in the military, and not institutionalized in a facility such as a prison or a long-term-care home.The most recentdataavailable from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, from December 2018, showed that West Virginia had a civilian labor force participation rate of 53.9 percent. The figure didnt deviate much throughout 2018, ranging from 53.7 percent to 54 percent depending on the month.Thenational civilian labor force participation ratewas 63.1 percent in December 2018, after rising from a low of 62.7 percent earlier in the year.

FMD_train_1562

Was taxpayer money used by Fauci for experiments on beagles that were described as cruel and unnecessary?

08/18/2021

Throughout the latter half of 2021, the taxpayer watchdog group White Coat Waste Project (WCW) released announcements that it had exposed several government-funded, cruel and unusual research projects that tested potential vaccines and drug therapeutics on beagles, which collectively cost taxpayers millions of dollars. In all cases, WCW pointed blame at Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), whom the group posited as having given the final approval to fund the projects. Snopes readers asked our team to focus our investigation on three of the studies in question, which included research conducted at the University of Georgia Research Foundation (UGR), the nonprofit research institute SRI International, and by scientists in Tunisia. The allegations began in July 2021 when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct painful experiments on beagles. WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles were given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project. In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs that cost taxpayers $1.68 million. In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as "torture." Snopes contacted WCW and obtained copies of documents reportedly obtained via separate Freedom of Information Act requests submitted by the organization. Claims of Fauci funding the torture of dogs circulated and recirculated in Fall 2021 and are largely based on two studies funded by the NIAID that did, indeed, involve using beagles as test subjects. We break those claims down below, but first, a closer look at the organization behind the reports. Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that self-describes as representing more than 2 million liberty lovers and animal lovers who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing. In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the brainchild of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti. His opposition to animal research began in 1995 when, in the summer between high school and college, he worked in a hospital laboratory that was conducting heart studies on pigs and witnessed experiments he saw as cruel. After he became a political consultant, he hit upon the idea of framing such research as a waste of taxpayer money, wrote AAAS. Following the UGR investigation into the lymphatic filariasis studies, a spokesperson for WCW told Snopes that in August 2021, the watchdog group also requested documents related to toxicity testing on beagles commissioned by NIAID. Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin on July 15, 2020, and wrap up by December 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses. The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies, a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below. The records outlined several studies involving both rats and beagles. The documents outline both the proposed study design as well as the actual results of the study, the latter of which resulted in 40 beagles between the ages of 8 and 9 months being administered oral and subcutaneous (under the skin) doses of an unnamed HIV therapeutic between September 2018 and October 2019. It is true that all dogs were euthanized following the study and their organs were analyzed for potential toxicity from the drugs. It is also true that the dogs' vocal cords were cut out. In a statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for "preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services" was conducted "as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent." "Vocal cordectomies, conducted humanely under anesthesia, may be used in research facilities where numerous dogs are present," the statement said. "This is to reduce noise, which is not only stressful to the animals but can also reach decibel levels that exceed OSHA allowable limits for people and can lead to hearing loss." The housing and care of the beagles at the time of the study was in accordance with the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care, while welfare requirements were met in accordance with regulations established by the U.S. Department of Agriculture through the Animal Welfare Act. Every effort will be made to minimize, if not eliminate, pain and suffering in all animals in this study. Moribund animals and animals experiencing undue pain and suffering will be euthanized at the discretion of the Study Director, attending veterinarian, or other qualified person. The Study Director will make every effort to protect the scientific validity of the study, read the document. While at least some of the funding was provided by NIAID, it is still unclear whether Fauci personally signed off on approving the research. Claims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site: Snopes read through the document, and our analysis confirmed that obligated funds were issued to the UGR by the NIH in the amount of $424,555 to determine the efficacy of a potential vaccine for lymphatic filariasis on beagle test subjects. A contract shared online by the U.S. government defined the research as: "PRE-CLINICAL MODELS OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES; TASK C12 LYMPHATIC FILARIASIS VACCINE (LFGUARD) EFFICACY TRIAL IN DOGS." Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci, and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH. Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. As with the first study, personal and proprietary information had been removed from the document, including the name of the vaccine and experiment objectives. The files did note that the contractor (UGR) was to acquire healthy, adult beagle dogs to administer different formulations [presumably of vaccine] to dogs via the intramuscular route. Each set of experiments will use 14 dogs, which total 28 dogs at the completion of the study (7 dogs in each group), read the statement of work. Studies began in mid-November 2020, at which point the pathogen-free adult beagle dogs were scheduled to receive a total of three doses on days 0, 28, and 56. Throughout the study, researchers were instructed to monitor the dogs' health twice daily and collect blood and urine samples. A first dose of the vaccine was administered on November 12, with a second round given on December 17 without incident, with one important exception. That exception was four dogs in the so-named blue group reported as having vocalized in pain upon administration. After a physical examination five days later, the four dogs were observed as being bright, alert, and responsive. A third and final round was administered on January 14, 2021, also without incident but with one important exception. Half of the animals in the blue group again vocalized in pain upon administration. A week later, they were once again deemed bright, alert, and responsive. Emails sent between the researchers were included in the FOIA documents and confirmed that only the blue group showed a consistent pain response. The research is scheduled to be completed by January 15, 2022, and all animals will be euthanized after day 196, read the FOIA document. The UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide, with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies. But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice and were shown to be 90% effective and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments "cruel and unnecessary" and claimed that some of the dogs were "bitten to death," the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically. All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare, notes the agency on its website. Furthermore, no evidence was put forward showing that the dogs were subject to biting, let alone "bitten to death." If any such information was included in the FOIA document, it has since been redacted. In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed at another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials. NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the standard. "Because this disease currently has no cure, unfortunately, the animals that are part of this trial must be euthanized. We do not take lightly the decision to use such animals in some of our research," Trevor reportedly told the publication. The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum, and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study, and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID when, in fact, NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated, NIAID told Politifact. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error. Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president. NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9% compared with the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci.

NEI

The allegations began in July 2021, when the Republican-led animal rights advocacy group published a report that claimed Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of NIAID, approved funding from taxpayer dollars to conduct painful experiments on beagles. WCW claimed in its July 30 report that Fauci, in an attempt to advance a human vaccine for a parasitic disease called lymphatic filariasis, spent $424,000 to commission a study in which healthy beagles are given an experimental drug and then intentionally infested with flies that carry a disease-causing parasite that affects humans. The findings of the WCW investigation were subsequently reported in publications like Fox News and conservative-leaning outlets such as RT, The Federalist, The Daily Caller, and The Patriot Project.In October 2021, Republican U.S. House Representative Nancy Mace of South Carolina tweeted a letter she sent to Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, referencing documents obtained via a Freedom of Information Act request from WCW. WCW claimed that from October 2018 to February 2019, Fauci ordered cruel and unusual drug toxicity tests on dogs that cost taxpayers $1.68 million. In a third report, WCW claimed that NIAID funded more than $375,000 to conduct a study that again used beagles as test subjects in experiments involving sand flies that the organization described as "torture."Founded in 2013, WCW is a watchdog group that is self-described as representing more than 2 million liberty lovers and animal-lovers who oppose using taxpayer dollars to support experiments on animals. It is not a traditional animal advocacy group but instead devotes its efforts to denouncing what it characterizes as wasted government funds spent on testing.In 2016, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) reported that the Washington, D.C.-based organization is the brainchild of former Republican strategist Anthony Bellotti.Snopes read through the file to verify the claims made in the WCW report specific to NIH contract number HHSN272201400006I, which was described in a government database as preclinical development services for AIDS therapeutics with SRI International, a California-based nonprofit scientific research institute. According to the government fiduciary site USA Spending, a $1.1 million grant was awarded to the organization by DHHS on behalf of the NIAID. The study was listed to begin July 15, 2020, and wrap up by Dec. 24, 2021, and included testing on small animals for therapeutics to treat HIV as well as Hepatitis B and C viruses. The request returned 1,438 pages of documents describing wasteful and unnecessary drug toxicity tests on beagle puppies, a WCW spokesperson told Snopes. The documents are hosted on our site at the link below. It is also true that the dogs vocal cords were cut out. In an statement emailed to MedPage Today, NIAID told the publication that the contract for "preclinical pharmacology and toxicology services" was conducted "as required in animal models by the FDA, in compliance with Good Laboratory Practice (GLP) guidelines and in a facility accredited by the Association for Assessment and Accreditation of Laboratory Animal Care (AAALAC) or its equivalent. WCWClaims of Fauci ordering the funding of therapeutic testing on beagles originated with a 38-page FOIA request submitted by WCW and shared publicly in July. Those are hosted in this Dropbox folder and have been archived on our site:Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through annual funds allocated by Congress and the president, though direct projects may be signed off on by various leaders within NIH. However, there is no evidence that the grant was personally approved by Fauci and there is no mention of him in the FOIA documentation. All that we can definitively say is that at least some of the money came from NIH. Neither the NIH nor UGR responded to Snopes requests to verify the documents published by WCW, but a spokesperson for WCW sent our team a letter, written by NIAID Government Information Specialist Lauren Bartok in response to the FOIA request under case number 55876. The letter referenced the experimental documents obtained by WCW, confirming that the experiments took place. Image of the filarial worm Dirofilaria immitis (heartworms) in a lymph node of a dog with lymphoma. Lance Wheeler/Public DomainThe UGR contract noted the vaccine was for lymphatic filariasis, a mosquito-borne parasitic infection, caused by microscopic, thread-like worms. When inside of their human hosts, these filarial worms live in the human lymph system and can cause elephantiasis and, in men, a condition called hydrocele that causes the swelling of the scrotum, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).Lymphatic filariasis affects an estimated 120 million people worldwide with another 1.2 billion at risk of infection, wrote researchers in 2014. Currently, there is no vaccine available for human cases, though treatment typically consists of chemotherapy and multiple drug therapies.But as the White Coat Project reported, vaccines for the disease have been tested in mice and were shown to be 90% effective and macaques (70% effective). In fact, at least 27 related animal experiments have been conducted since the 1940s on filarial worms. While WCW deemed the experiments "cruel and unnecessary" and claimed that some of the dogs were "bitten to death," the NIH contends that all research involving animals is overseen by the agency's Office of Laboratory Welfare to ensure it is conducted ethically. All animals used in NIH-funded research are protected by laws, regulations, and policies that ensure the smallest number of subjects and the greatest commitment to their welfare, notes the agency on its website.In an interview with Newsweek, Greg Trevor, associate vice president for marketing and communications at UGR, confirmed that the research was for a potential vaccine that was developed and another institution. In an emailed statement, Trevor reportedly told the publication that under federal rules, a vaccine must be tested in two animal species before it can be cleared for human clinical trials. NIAID decided to fund this research and that it needed to be conducted on a dog model, of which beagles are the standard.The third study took place in Tunisia and analyzed whether a species of sand fly (Phlebotomus perniciosus) was noticeably attracted to beagles who were infected with Leishmania infantum, the parasite that causes the skin disease leishmaniasis. Sand flies are the main vector of L. infantum and dogs are the main host and reservoir of the disease. Though the research took place, NIAID did not fund the study and the journal that published the study, PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, issued a correction after reporting that the federal agency did support the study. The manuscript mistakenly cited support from NIAID, when in fact NIAID did not support this specific research shown in the images of the beagles being circulated, NIAID told Politifact.PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases confirmed to MedPage Today that the mistake was made and posted a correction online, adding that NIAID did not provide any funding for this research and any such claim was made in error. Research conducted on behalf of NIAID is funded in large part through congressional and executive actions deciding how to allocate taxpayer dollars. These annual allocations are then signed off on by the sitting president.NIAID funding for the fiscal year 2021 was awarded $5.4 billion by then-U.S. President Donald Trump in 2020. The following year, President Joe Biden requested an increase of $178.9 million, or 2.9% compared with the fiscal year 2021 enacted level, for a total of $6.2 billion to be awarded in the fiscal year 2022. It is true that research conducted at UGR and SRI International was at least in part funded by NIAID with taxpayer dollars, though it is unclear whether such allocations were personally approved by Fauci.

FMD_train_282

Are Traffickers Leaving Zip Ties on Targets' Windshield Wipers?

12/02/2019

In November and December 2019, a meme circulated on Facebook warning that human traffickers were leaving zip ties on women's windshield wipers as they shopped to mark them as potential victims for abduction. This was a variation of a familiar meme that we identified as false in July 2019. At that time, we reported that human trafficking affects millions of people worldwide, but it is also the frequent subject of viral scare lore—fictional tales intended to frighten audiences, often prompting them to share without questioning the story. One such story went viral in October 2018 and again in late July 2019 when social media users shared a meme stating that human traffickers were leaving zip ties (in some posts, black in color) on homes, mailboxes, and cars of potential female victims to either mark them as targets or distract and abduct them for sex-trafficking purposes when the women tried to remove the ties. The hoax initially centered on San Angelo, Texas, in October 2018, but police there quickly debunked it. We rate the newer variation as "False" as well, because although police in College Station, Texas, addressed the meme and reminded citizens to always be aware of their surroundings, officers were unaware of zip ties being used by human traffickers to mark potential victims. Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know.

False

In November and December 2019, a meme circulated on Facebook warning that human traffickers were leaving zip ties on women's windshield wipers as they shopped to mark them as potential victims/targets for abduction:This was a variation of a familiar meme that we identified as false in July 2019. At that time we reported:Human trafficking affects millions of people worldwide, but its also the frequent subject of viral scarelore fictional tales intended to frighten audiences, often prompting them to share without questioning the story.One such story went viral in October 2018 and again in late July 2019 when social media users shared a meme stating that human traffickers were leaving zip ties (in some posts, black in color) on homes, mailboxes, and cars, of potential female victims to either mark them as targets or distract and abduct them for sex-trafficking purposes when the women try to remove the ties.We rate the newer variation as "False" as well, because although police in College Station, Texas, addressed the meme and reminded citizens to always be aware of their surroundings, officers were unaware of zip ties being used by human traffickers to mark potential victims.Have you seen other variations of this claim? Let us know.

FMD_train_1225

Does This Photograph Show a Dog Burned While Rescuing Its Family?

12/30/2015

In December 2015, a picture purportedly showing a dog that had been badly burned while rescuing a family from a fire started circulating on social media: circulating This image does not capture a dog who was badly burned while rescuing its family from a fire (or injured through any other means). The photograph shows a dog with a piece of ham on its face. While this may seem obvious to some viewers, several people liked and shared the above-displayed Facebook post as if it were a genuine item. Stephen Roseman, the Facebook user who posted the infamous image, admitted that the story was fake in the comment section below his post: People, people this isn't even my dog, I found this picture on fascistbook, stole it, and decided to use it in a prank to fool these religitards So I did, and low and behold idiots left and right fall for it, and those that didn't, seem to think they have a superior intelligence or something, for pointing out the obvious Keep in mind, I never told a single soul to like this, that is their choice, I don't give a f*ck either way. The image, in other words, was initially shared specifically to poke fun at both the people who tend to share "1 like = 1 prayer" messages on social media sites, and at the people who would subsequently point out that it was a joke.

False

In December 2015, a picture purportedly showing a dog that had been badly burned while rescuing a family from a fire started circulating on social media:

FMD_train_490

Seventy-seven of the top 300 cities with the highest poverty rate nationwide are in California.

06/09/2017

When asked to list his top three priorities for California at a recent forum, Democratic candidate for governorAntonio Villaraigosaresponded: I think weve got to start with the economy, the economy, the economy. The former mayor of Los Angeles acknowledged strong economic growth in some places, but made it clear that not all of California is growing together. Villaraigosa went on to make an eye-opening claim about how many California cities rank among the poorest in the nation. Seventy-seven of the top 300 cities with the highest poverty rate are in our state, Villaraigosa said at theforum, hosted on June 6, 2017 in San Francisco by the Public Policy Institute of California. Villaraigosa makes his claim at about the 6:45 minute mark in this video by the Public Policy Institute of California. We know the state has struggled mightily with poverty. As an example, we ratedTruea claim by Republican Assembly Leader Chad Mayes in January that California has the highest poverty rate in the nation when comparing states and considering cost-of-living. At 20.6 percent, Californias poverty rate in 2015 was well above the national average of 15.1 percent, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report called theSupplemental Poverty Measure. Floridas 19 percent poverty rate ranked second. For a two-adult, two-child family in California, the poverty threshold was an average of $30,000, depending on the region in the state, according to a2014 analysisby Public Policy Institute of California. With this in mind, we decided to fact-check Villaraigosas assertion that California is also home to one-quarter of the nations poorest cities. Governors race Villaraigosa is amongseveral prominent Democratscompeting to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. Others include California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor. Republican candidates include John Cox, a venture capitalist from San Diego County and Rosie Grier, a former professional football player. PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in this race. See our Tracking The Truth governors race fact-checkshere. Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook. Our research Villaraigosas spokeswoman said his poverty claim draws on a 2015 report by the National Resource Network calledHidden in Plain Sight: Why California's Economically Challenged Cities Matter. The network was created by the Obama Administration to develop innovative solutions to American cities to help them address their toughest economic challenges. Its study listed 77 economically challenged cities in California, ranging from big metros such as Los Angeles, Sacramento and Oakland to small ones like Lodi, Delano and Watsonville. It defines economically challenged as having at least one of the following characteristics: -- More than 9 percent of residents remained unemployed as of 2013 -- More than 20 percent of adults are living in poverty -- Population decline between 2000 and 2010 reached 5 percent Nationwide, it found nearly 300 such cities. Californias count equals about one-quarter of those. We wondered, however, whether cities listed as economically challenged (due at least partly to a 2013 jobless rate) could also be considered as currently having the highest poverty rate, as Villaraigosa described them this week. Had Villaraigosa stretched the truth or perhaps conflated two separate descriptions of economic hardship? Staff at the National Resource Network, including the studys lead author, did not immediately return requests for comment. Experts weigh in Ann Stevens director of the Center for Poverty Research and a professor of economics at the University of California at Davis, reviewed the study and Villaraigosas claim at our request His statement is not accurate in terms of the poverty rate, Stevens told us. Thats because the study labeled many of these cities as economically challenged because of their 2013 jobless rate, which is different than the poverty rate in 2013 or the poverty rate on average today. We found nearly half of the 77 cities described as economically challenged qualified for that label not because their poverty rate was above 20 percent, but because of their high jobless rate in 2013. In fact, the poverty level for at least some of these cities was closer to or below the national average. At that time, many cities in California were still struggling with high unemployment due to the Great Recession, Stevens added. But thats a temporary measure of economic hardship, not a permanent one. Caroline Danielson, who researches poverty at the Public Policy Institute of California, said many of those cities are no longer struggling with unemployment. Los Angeles, for example, now has a jobless rate of 3.9 percent down from 9.7 percent in 2013, she said. Danielson said theres no comparable ranking of every American city, large and small, by poverty rate. If there was, she said: I dont believe that California would be quite so overrepresented as we found in this report. Thats not to say that California has no high poverty cities. Along with pointing to the study, Villaraigosas spokeswoman said the candidate would still consider the 77 cities in the study to be among those nationally with the highest poverty rate - certainly well above the average - and that is what makes them economically challenged. Thats not the same as Villaraigosas original statement that all 77 rank nationally among cities with the highest poverty rate. Our ruling Candidate for California governor Antonio Villaraigosa recently claimed: Seventy-seven of the top 300 cities with the highest poverty rate are in our state. He relied on a study that grouped 77 economically challenged cities in California among nearly 300 such cities in the nation. But it used data from four years ago, when many cities were still recovering from the Great Recession. Villaraigosa made it sound as if these cities are still experiencing the same level of hardship. Also, experts on poverty said the economically challenged label isnt the same as Villaraigosas description of these cities as among the poorest in the nation. Nearly half the cities on the studys list qualified for that label not because of their poverty level. Many, in fact, had poverty rates below the state average. Instead, they qualified because they had a high unemployment rate in 2013. The jobless rate in many of those cities has improved considerably since then. Villaraigosa touched on a real problem in California: Poverty remains widespread and entrenched. But he mischaracterized the results of a study and painted a darker picture of economic hardship in California than the facts bear out. We rate Villaraigosas claim False. FALSEThe statement is not accurate. Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

False

When asked to list his top three priorities for California at a recent forum, Democratic candidate for governorAntonio Villaraigosaresponded: I think weve got to start with the economy, the economy, the economy.Seventy-seven of the top 300 cities with the highest poverty rate are in our state, Villaraigosa said at theforum, hosted on June 6, 2017 in San Francisco by the Public Policy Institute of California.We know the state has struggled mightily with poverty. As an example, we ratedTruea claim by Republican Assembly Leader Chad Mayes in January that California has the highest poverty rate in the nation when comparing states and considering cost-of-living.At 20.6 percent, Californias poverty rate in 2015 was well above the national average of 15.1 percent, according to a U.S. Census Bureau report called theSupplemental Poverty Measure. Floridas 19 percent poverty rate ranked second.For a two-adult, two-child family in California, the poverty threshold was an average of $30,000, depending on the region in the state, according to a2014 analysisby Public Policy Institute of California.Villaraigosa is amongseveral prominent Democratscompeting to succeed Jerry Brown as governor. Others include California TreasurerJohn Chiang; Delaine Eastin, the states former superintendent for public instruction; andGavin Newsom, the states current lieutenant governor.PolitiFact California is fact-checking claims in this race. See our Tracking The Truth governors race fact-checkshere.Tracking the Truth: Hear a claim you want fact-checked? Email us at[email protected], tweet us@CAPolitiFactor contact us onFacebook.Villaraigosas spokeswoman said his poverty claim draws on a 2015 report by the National Resource Network calledHidden in Plain Sight: Why California's Economically Challenged Cities Matter. The network was created by the Obama Administration to develop innovative solutions to American cities to help them address their toughest economic challenges.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_1178

In the United States, a college loan stands out as the only type of loan that is not eligible for refinancing when interest rates decrease.

04/06/2016

Former President Bill Clinton raised a hot-button issue while campaigning for his wife in Los Angeles this week: America's mounting student loan debt. Student debt in the United States has reached $1.3 trillion, trailing only the amount Americans owe on their mortgages. It is often blamed for preventing young people from buying houses and cars, which fuels the country's economy. Undergraduates in the class of 2015 graduated with an average of $35,000 in student loan debt, the highest in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website. If elected president in November, Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton would remove a unique barrier related to college loans, the former president claimed. A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down, Bill Clinton said, speaking at a recent campaign rally at Los Angeles Trade-Technical College. We wondered: Is refinancing really off-limits for all college loans? With student loan debt being such a significant issue this election year, we decided to check the facts. Past efforts at change Both Hillary Clinton and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, have pledged to allow student loans to be refinanced. However, they weren't the first to call for this change. In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejected legislation by Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have allowed student borrowers to refinance their federal loan debt. Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in a Washington Post news article at the time. Republicans argued that they were not convinced the legislation would have resulted in lower borrowing costs and labeled it an election stunt. The bill would have allowed people with federal and private loans issued prior to 2010 to refinance at 3.86 percent, the article stated. It added that the Obama administration estimated that the bill could have helped 25 million borrowers save $2,000 each over the lifetime of their loans, totaling $50 billion. Our research As they campaigned across the country, Hillary Clinton and Sen. Sanders have each pledged to allow for the refinancing of college loan debt. What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are discussing is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of all student borrowing. We turned to the nonprofit college planning group American Student Assistance for some advice. They and other groups say federal student loans can be refinanced into private loans. However, doing so can remove federal protections such as fixed interest rates and the ability to pause repayments. Additionally, private student loans can be refinanced into new lower-interest private loans. But there is no provision in federal law allowing the refinancing of a federal loan into another, lower-interest federal loan. There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, regardless of how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistance advises potential borrowers. PolitiFact Texas examined a similar claim in 2014 and rated it Mostly True. They spoke with Heather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who informed them that some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. However, she noted that this would only occur in cases where borrowers have substantial income. Jarvis added that refinancing federal loans with a private loan is risky, as the borrower gives up important protections that accompany federal loans (like flexible repayment and discharge provisions). Students repaying federally backed loans, Jarvis stated, are effectively barred from refinancing opportunities because federal law makes no provision for the government to make such offers. Asked about the former president's statement, Bill Clinton's press secretary said in an email that it is very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federal debt. She pointed to statistics from the College Board showing that federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She mentioned that a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by converting it into a private loan. Our ruling Former President Bill Clinton stated at a recent campaign rally in Los Angeles: A college loan is the only loan in the United States that you cannot refinance when interest rates go down. Borrowers of federally backed student loans, which account for about 90 percent of student loans, cannot refinance those into lower-interest federal loans. Congress sets the interest rate on these loans, and there is no provision in federal law that allows for them to be refinanced. Depending on factors such as income, some borrowers can refinance their federal loans into lower-interest private loans, though they risk losing their federal loan protections. Clinton most likely was referring only to federally backed loans when he made his statement, but a clarification about private loans would have been helpful. We rated his 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

Undergraduates in the class of 2015 finished school with anaverage of $35,000in student loan debt, the most in history, according to Edvisors.com, a financial aid website.In June 2014, Senate Republicans rejectedlegislationby Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., that would have let student borrowers refinance their federal loan debt.Homeowners are refinancing. Small businesses are refinancing. We just want young people who got an education to have their shot, Warren was quoted as saying in aWashington Post news articleat the time.What they, and apparently Bill Clinton, are talking about is refinancing federally backed student loans, which account forabout 90 percentof all student borrowing.There is no federal refinancing. Congress sets the interest rate for federal student loans, and most of these rates are fixed by law, no matter how solid your credit or income becomes post-graduation, American Student Assistanceadvisespotential borrowers.PolitiFact Texasexamined a similar claimin 2014 and rated it Mostly True.They spoke withHeather Jarvis, a North Carolina attorney specializing in student loan law, who told them some graduates may be able to refinance student loans at lower rates through private lenders. But, she said, this would only happen in cases in which borrowers have substantial income.Asked about the former presidents statement, Bill Clintons press secretary said in an email its very safe to say that the vast majority of students with debt have federaldebt. She pointed tostatistics from the College Boardshowing federal loans account for about 90 percent of student borrowing. She said a small percentage of borrowers can refinance a federal student loan by making it a private loan.Click here formoreon the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

FMD_train_1767

Can a meme effectively capture the significance of Kamala Harris being Vice President?

01/27/2021

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

True

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

FMD_train_1203

Walmart 'GALE' Receipts Are Outdated

08/20/2021

In August 2021, an image supposedly showing a receipt from Walmart with an erroneous $30 charge for "GALE" was circulated online. Many of these posts included a "public service announcement" warning other customers about this "glitch," while some claimed that Walmart was purposefully adding this phantom charge to bilk customers out of $30. PSAHolly and I grocery shop every Saturday, splitting our purchases between Walmart and Kroger. After all these years, I know we typically spend between $90 and $110 at Walmart. Today, however, our total was $144.02. I told Holly this was too high, and after reviewing the receipt, I went to Customer Service and asked, "What is GALE for $32.00?" I was informed that there is a glitch in the Walmart system and that "GALE" pops up randomly. After tax, I was overcharged by $34.24. Check your receipts! While this appears to be a genuine picture of a receipt with an erroneous charge, it is not a widespread issue. Furthermore, this receipt is from 2019, not 2021. We found a couple of other reports from 2018 and 2019 of people seeing an erroneous charge for "GALE" on their receipts. These reports all included a $32 charge and the same 12-digit serial code (00000000003k). In all three examples we found, the posters included anecdotes about how they quickly received a refund after bringing this error to the cashier's attention. Facebook user Rhea Azure wrote in 2019: "Always check your receipts!!! This was at the Walmart in Bottineau. I went to spend a certain amount of money and couldn't figure out why I didn't have enough for all my items when I added everything up, including taxes. After paying, I looked through my receipt and found GALE for $32.00. I had no idea what that was, and neither did the cashier/supervisor. She immediately reimbursed me for it. ALWAYS check your receipts!!" A December 2018 Reddit post provided more information. That person said that the customer service representative indicated the cashier likely entered a wrong number by mistake: "After a 32-minute wait in the customer service line, the representative said, 'Nah. That's not something we sell.' The immediate response was somewhat suspicious. They told me, 'That's not a legitimate item code.' I knew I was on to something. She called over a more senior representative of Customer Service, who told me, 'Yeah, we see that sometimes. The cashier accidentally hits a number and then 'Enter,' and a phantom item is rung up.' Without complaint, they refunded my $32.34. (I even had to pay tax on my phantom item.) We reached out to Walmart for more information but have not yet heard back. The above explanation, however, mirrors what we heard from a Walmart spokesperson in 2019 when we examined a similar rumor. Around the same time that these "GALE" receipts started circulating on social media, a similar claim was made about a $10 "phantom" charge for JAJKET. In this case, too, it seemed like social media users were exaggerating the impact of an individual's mistake into a nationwide issue. A spokesperson for Walmart told us at the time: "We immediately began looking into this issue when it was brought to our attention and want to assure customers at our Clinton store that they are only being charged for items they purchase. We isolated the problem our customer experienced to an incorrect product barcode that one of our cashiers entered as she was checking out. The issue was immediately resolved, and as a precaution, we are training the store associates on what to look for should anything like that happen again, ensuring none of our other stores are affected. We reimbursed the customer for the incorrect charge, apologized to her, and appreciate that she brought this to our attention." While the images of a Walmart receipt with a "GALE" charge are real, these were isolated incidents involving human error and not a widespread systematic glitch. Furthermore, these receipts all date back to 2019 or earlier.

NEI

Facebook user Rhea Azure wrote in 2019:A December 2018 Reddit post provided more information. That person said that the customer service representative said that the cashier likely entered a wrong number by mistake:Around the same time that these "GALE" receipts started circulating on social media, a similar claim was circulated about a $10 "phantom" charge for JAJKET. In this case, too, it seemed like social media users were exaggerating the impact of an individual's mistake into a nationwide issue.

FMD_train_586

Did Target experience a significant drop in their stock value as a result of 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," requiring 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 due 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_1629

Are the 'Las Vegas Travel' Facebook Vacation Giveaways Real?

03/03/2021

In early March 2021, readers alerted us to a Facebook scam that involved a Bora Bora vacation getaway. This led us to revisit Facebook pages like Las Vegas Travel that advertised a Las Vegas vacation giveaway. involved Las Vegas Travel We previously made note of the suspicious Vegas page in July 2020. At the time, we archived a post from a different, though similar one: Las Vegas Vacations. At least one of the pages had a Russian page manager. archived On July 2, we noticed that the Las Vegas Travel page had shared a post from Las Vegas Vacations. It mentioned a purported grand opening celebration for a resort. "We're going to celebrate our grand opening by doing something special for you. We will be rewarding someone who has shared then commented by August 26th with a 7-night stay for up to 5 people in a luxury suite. Don't worry about flights and transfers, it's all included." shared As of March 2021, the above post and likely many other posts like it had been deleted. This appeared to be an effort to cover the tracks of the scammers so they could keep the pages alive for future fake giveaways. Just like with the Bora Bora getaway, the Las Vegas pages were illegitimate. They should be avoided for the possibility of phishing, identity theft, and other potential consequences. We strongly suggest against submitting any personal information to links on these pages. Since July, the Las Vegas Travel page attempted to expand its scheme to Instagram. Meanwhile, the Las Vegas Vacations page was still running the "Grand Opening Celebration" scam. expand still running The Las Vegas Vacations Facebook page was created in July 2020. It was purportedly managed from the United Kingdom and Germany. For almost a year and a half, Facebook failed to take action on the illegitimate pages. The Las Vegas Travel Facebook page was created in 2019. As of March 2021, it had around 250,000 followers. Las Vegas Vacations was created in July 2020. It was building toward 50,000 followers. The scam appeared to work in a similar way to the Bora Bora getaway. In fact, the same person or group of people appeared to manage both fake giveaways. We came to this conclusion after noticing similarities in dates and text on the pages. Further, the same .xyz domain website was listed. Bora Bora getaway Here's how the scam worked. First, Facebook users were asked to like, share, and comment with the word: "WIN." This February - We are giving away 10 nights at the The Venetian Las Vegas for 5 people. Includes Flights, Accommodation & Transfers. You will have 2 years to use the holiday! To participate:1. Like2. Share3. Comment: "WIN"Closes 28th February at 9pm. Next, a personal Facebook profile that appeared to be a page responded to each entrant. (A Facebook profile is for an individual person. A page is for companies, bands, personalities, etc.) The response to each entrant read: "You win. Check my profile." The profile named "Las Vegas-Nevanda" had a name in its Facebook URL: facebook.com/titis.ariandini. It read: "Titis Ariandini." "Honey, just a reminder that we're having dinner on Friday with the Vegas-Nevandas." Entrants who clicked to view the "Las Vegas-Nevanda" profile were led to yet another post. It advised Facebook users to visit a link to register for a prize. The post also told readers "this is original and official." How reassuring. One Facebook user named Jason appeared to believe the scam giveaway was real. In the same comment, he also referred to effective measures to reduce the chance of more deaths from the COVID-19 pandemic as a "communist shutdown." The link in the post led to a registration page that mirrored scammy websites we've seen before. Needless to say, this is not a registration page from a real Las Vegas resort. The registration page resulted in affiliate marketing links for streaming movie websites. This was where the Bora Bora getaway pages ended as well. The point of the affiliate marketing was for the scammers to make commissions on signups on the streaming movie websites. Again, it was also possible that the scam involved phishing, identity theft, and other dangerous outcomes. We found a number of other pages that shared the Las Vegas scams. They appeared to be in the same network of Facebook pages. They included: Maldives 2021, Bora Bora Vacations, Cancun Tours, New York Christmas Vacations, Maldives Getaways, Santorini - Greece, Package Holidays 2021, Dominican Republic Vacations 2021, Bali Tourism, Visit Hawaii, Seychelles Holidays, Tourism Bali, Cabo Tourism, Cabo San Lucas 2021, and Bali Holidays. Maldives 2021 Bora Bora Vacations Cancun Tours New York Christmas Vacations Maldives Getaways Santorini - Greece Package Holidays 2021 Dominican Republic Vacations 2021 Bali Tourism Visit Hawaii Seychelles Holidays Tourism Bali Cabo Tourism Cabo San Lucas 2021 Bali Holidays We noticed that some of these pages were scrubbed of their past scam posts. This allowed the page managers to plead innocence and continue running their post-and-delete operations. Further, this list of pages perhaps only scratched the surface of the entire scam empire. In sum, the giveaways that showed up on the Las Vegas Travel and Las Vegas Vacations Facebook pages were not legitimate. Facebook failed to take action on these scams despite their existence dating back to at least 2019. As a rule, it's always good to look for the "verified" badge on Facebook pages. "verified" badge

False

In early March 2021, readers alerted us to a Facebook scam that involved a Bora Bora vacation getaway. This led us to revisit Facebook pages like Las Vegas Travel that advertised a Las Vegas vacation giveaway.We previously made note of the suspicious Vegas page in July 2020. At the time, we archived a post from a different, though similar one: Las Vegas Vacations. At least one of the pages had a Russian page manager.On July 2, we noticed that the Las Vegas Travel page had shared a post from Las Vegas Vacations. It mentioned a purported grand opening celebration for a resort. "We're going to celebrate our grand opening by doing something special for you. We will be rewarding someone who has shared then commented by August 26th with a 7-night stay for up to 5 people in a luxury suite. Don't worry about flights and transfers, it's all included." As of March 2021, the above post and likely many other posts like it had been deleted. This appeared to be an effort to cover the tracks of the scammers so they could keep the pages alive for future fake giveaways.Since July, the Las Vegas Travel page attempted to expand its scheme to Instagram. Meanwhile, the Las Vegas Vacations page was still running the "Grand Opening Celebration" scam. The Las Vegas Vacations Facebook page was created in July 2020. It was purportedly managed from the United Kingdom and Germany.The scam appeared to work in a similar way to the Bora Bora getaway. In fact, the same person or group of people appeared to manage both fake giveaways. We came to this conclusion after noticing similarities in dates and text on the pages. Further, the same .xyz domain website was listed. "Honey, just a reminder that we're having dinner on Friday with the Vegas-Nevandas." The post also told readers "this is original and official." How reassuring. Needless to say, this is not a registration page from a real Las Vegas resort.We found a number of other pages that shared the Las Vegas scams. They appeared to be in the same network of Facebook pages. They included: Maldives 2021, Bora Bora Vacations, Cancun Tours, New York Christmas Vacations, Maldives Getaways, Santorini - Greece, Package Holidays 2021, Dominican Republic Vacations 2021, Bali Tourism, Visit Hawaii, Seychelles Holidays, Tourism Bali, Cabo Tourism, Cabo San Lucas 2021, and Bali Holidays.In sum, the giveaways that showed up on the Las Vegas Travel and Las Vegas Vacations Facebook pages were not legitimate. Facebook failed to take action on these scams despite their existence dating back to at least 2019. As a rule, it's always good to look for the "verified" badge on Facebook pages.

FMD_train_531

Jay-Z and Beyonce Buy Confederate Flag?

07/08/2015

FACT CHECK: Are musicians Jay-Z and Beyonce attempting to buy up the rights to the Confederate flag to prevent its further use? Claim: Musicians Jay-Z and Beyonce are attempting to buy the rights to the Confederate flag to prevent its further use. Origins: On 7 July 2015 the web site Newswatch33 published an article titled "Jay-Z and Beyonce Attempt to Buy Rights to Confederate Flag to Prevent Further Use," which reported that: article According to Ralph Hammerstein, an attorney representing Shawn Jay-Z Carter and Beyonce Knowles-Carter, the couple is attempting to purchase rights to the Confederate flag to prevent further use of the flag on merchandise. According to Hammerstein, the couple is in the works of purchasing all resell rights to the confederate flag. My clients are adamant about purchasing the rights to the Rebel Confederate flag. They have expressed deep concern regarding the flag and how it is tearing apart our nation. Mr. and Mrs. Carter wants to assist in the abolishment of the flag by purchasing the resell rights to the Confederate flag. If my clients are successful, purchasing the rights would mean that anyone who wants to produce merchandise using the Confederate flag would have to get permission from Mr. and Mrs. Carter. My clients have expressed that they are not looking to profit from the use of the flag but rather prevent any further use of the flag on merchandise, according to Hammerstein. This story was nothing more than yet another bit of fake news from NewsWatch33, a web site that emerged on social media just after the very similar NewsWatch28 fake news site was shuttered (possibly as part of a plot to skirt Facebook's crackdown on fake news articles). Before publishing the above-linked article, the site agitated Facebook and Twitter users by fabricating tales about a white supremacist group that supposedly raised $4 million for the defense of Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Roof and about a girl who was supposedly electrocuted by iPhone ear buds. NewsWatch28 crackdown $4 million electrocuted This story echoed other (fictional) urban legends about prominent entertainment figures attempting to buy up the rights to cultural symbols associated with racism in order the keep them out of the public view, such as one about comedian Bill Cosby's supposedly having purchased the rights to the Our Gang/Little Rascals film shorts, or CNN founder Ted Turner's allegedly having snared the rights to The Dukes of Hazzard television series both with the intent of withholding them from any future broadcasting airings. Our Gang/Little Rascals In this case, however, the rights to the symbol in question could not be bought up by any party, as no one holds a legitimate trademark to the design of the Confederate flag. trademark Last updated: 8July 2015 Originally published: 8July 2015

False

Origins: On 7 July 2015 the web site Newswatch33 published an article titled "Jay-Z and Beyonce Attempt to Buy Rights to Confederate Flag to Prevent Further Use," which reported that: This story was nothing more than yet another bit of fake news from NewsWatch33, a web site that emerged on social media just after the very similar NewsWatch28 fake news site was shuttered (possibly as part of a plot to skirt Facebook's crackdown on fake news articles). Before publishing the above-linked article, the site agitated Facebook and Twitter users by fabricating tales about a white supremacist group that supposedly raised $4 million for the defense of Charleston shooting suspect Dylann Roof and about a girl who was supposedly electrocuted by iPhone ear buds.This story echoed other (fictional) urban legends about prominent entertainment figures attempting to buy up the rights to cultural symbols associated with racism in order the keep them out of the public view, such as one about comedian Bill Cosby's supposedly having purchased the rights to the Our Gang/Little Rascals film shorts, or CNN founder Ted Turner's allegedly having snared the rights to The Dukes of Hazzard television series both with the intent of withholding them from any future broadcasting airings.In this case, however, the rights to the symbol in question could not be bought up by any party, as no one holds a legitimate trademark to the design of the Confederate flag.

FMD_train_733

'Be Like Bill' Spreads Malware?

01/28/2016

In January 2016, a Facebook trend most commonly referenced as "Be Like Bill" swept the social network. During that time, users initially posted comics in which a character named "Bill" served as a reinforcer of social media etiquette, before "Be Like Bill" generators enabled users to create personalized versions of the meme. As is often the case with items like "Be Like Bill" that appear seemingly from nowhere and go Facebook-wide, it wasn't long before people became suspicious of this Bill character and his purpose on their News Feeds. Soon after Bill became the meme of the day, a backlash against it began: one that first simply decried the "scolding" nature of the trend, then followed up with rumors that the ubiquitous comic was a vector for malware, information theft, or other undesirable outcomes. Scolding Bill proved so popular and omnipresent that multiple local news outlets carried reports about the potential dangers of creating a "Be Like Bill" meme. Missouri TV station KFVS, Kansas City station KCTV, and Washington, D.C., station WTTG generated concern with coverage about the specific comic, typically lumping it into the general category of "clickbait" and associating it with the risks of all unvetted apps. It's known as 'clickbait,' and if you haven't read the terms and conditions on the creator's website, the details may shock you. The company originally stated in its privacy terms, "You will allow us to use and edit your content with our service permanently, with no limit and no recovery." KFVS-TV also mentioned that, in some cases, content can contain viruses that can damage your computer, use your Facebook profile in ways you might not know, or even attempt to steal your credit card or bank account numbers. As the above-quoted material stated, Facebook has indeed presented a handy way for bad actors to engage in all sorts of unpleasant activities using compelling content. However, the "in some cases" outcomes described apply to malicious apps in general and not specifically to any known vulnerabilities linked to the "Be Like Bill" meme. Many articles cited existing Better Business Bureau warnings about rogue apps that predated "Be Like Bill" and referenced "clickbait," but the term was applied exceptionally broadly and not specifically to malware. In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various websites. Of additional interest was a widely reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla (which offered a mechanism for customizing "Be Like Bob" memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to "allow [Blobla] to use and edit your content with our service permanently, with no limit and no recovery." We were unable to verify that such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in their agreement as of January 27, 2016. On that date, Chicago station WMAQ published an article reporting that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest "Be Like Bill" posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois, Steve Bernas, had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors). According to the outlet, Blobla clarified that the generator didn't require Facebook authorizations of the sort generally associated with malware or rogue apps. However, the Better Business Bureau has not yet definitively ruled whether the generated memes pose a risk to you or your computer. The sensation's creator, Bloba, on the other hand, says they don't collect any data from users and their terms are the same as any others you see on Facebook. "First, our game Be Like Bill doesn't require users to authorize a Facebook app," a spokesperson for Bloba wrote in response. "Of course, if users want to share the results to Facebook, they must be logged into Facebook. However, we use the Facebook share dialog for users to share their results. It's very common... This doesn't allow us to collect any data from users' Facebook accounts." Blobla's creators also explained that the now-elided, widely cited verbiage ("permanently, with no limit and no recovery") was poorly composed and pertained to unrelated functions that might have ended up on their website. "Second, we do not store any information about users on our servers, as stated in our Terms of Service," Bloba continued. "Third, the terms about our right to users' content are about posts on our website (a post may be a game like Be Like Bill, or a quiz, or a video...). Because our website has a function for normal users to create a post in other languages, we have removed that term to avoid misunderstanding." On January 29, 2016, BBB communications director Katherine Hutt clarified the bureau's stance on "Be Like Bill," due to the multiple news reports conflating their earlier "clickbait" warnings with that particular meme and generator: "We don't issue warnings about a specific company without investigating first." Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about "Be Like Bill" or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of "Be Like Bill"-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

False

As is often the case with items like "Be Like Bill" that appear seemingly from the ether and go Facebook-wide, it wasn't long before folks became suspicious of this Bill character and his purpose on their News Feeds. Soonafter Bill became the meme of the day, a backlash against the meme was started: one that first simply decried the "scolding" nature of the trend, then followed up with rumors that the ubiquitous comic was a vector for malware, information theft, or other undesirable outcomes:Bill proved so popular and omnipresent that multiple local news outlets carried reports about the potential dangers of creating a "Be Like Bill" meme. Missouri TV station KFVS, Kansas City station KCTV (clip below), and Washington, D.C., station WTTGran some concern-generatingcoverage about the specific comic, typically lumping it into the general category of "clickbait" and associating it with the risk of all unvetted apps:KCTV5Many articles cited extantBetter Business Bureau warnings about rogue apps that antedated "Be Like Bill" and referenced "clickbait," but the term was applied exceptionally broadly and not specifically to malware. In short, whether an item is clickbait itself has no bearing on its potential to cause harm to computers or accounts, and plenty of clickbait exists just to drive traffic to various web sites.Of additional interest (in bold) was a widely-reproduced excerpt from the Terms of Service of publisher Blobla's (who offered a mechanism for customizing "Be Like Bob" memes) that purportedly stated end users agreed to "allow [Blobla] to use, edit your content with our service permanently, no limit and no recover." We were unable to verify such language ever appeared in the agreement in question, and no such wording was in the their agreement as of 27 January 2016.On 27 January 2016, Chicago station WMAQ published an article which reported that the Better Business Bureau (BBB) didn't suggest "Be Like Bill" posed any specific threat at all to social media users and added that the President and CEO of the Better Business Bureau of Chicago and Northern Illinois Steve Bernas had confirmed only that the BBB was looking into the meme (and keeping an eye out for impostors).Finally, outlets devoted to more detailed reporting on online security (such as Sophos' Naked Security blog) haven't issued any warnings about "Be Like Bill" or the popular comic generator. No widespread reports of adverse outcomes have substantiated news affiliate speculation, and the bulk of "Be Like Bill"-themed reports focused on the general ability for malware to spread through apps, not any reports definitively (or anecdotally) related to that meme specifically. While users might tire of seeing Bill across their feeds, he doesn't pose a threat to anything more than annoyance-free browsing.

FMD_train_182

Does Video Offer Real Footage of the Titanic Sinking?

08/02/2022

More than a century after the infamous sinking of the RMS Titanic, which resulted in the death of more than 1,500 passengers, the internet continues to obsess over the tragedy. Case in point: July 2022, a fake video shared to TikTok that claimed to show the sinking of the cruise liner racked up nearly a half-million likes. A caption accompanying the video read, Rare footage of the 1912 sinking of the Titanic. However, the video is a fake. Titanic left its port of Southhampton, England, for its transatlantic maiden voyage on April 10, 1912. Four days later, the nearly 900-foot vessel collided with an iceberg near Newfoundland, Canada, at 11:40 p.m. Two hours and 40 minutes later, the vessel broke in two and sank, according to the Titanic Inquiry Project. Because many of its passengers were noteworthy individuals, the sinking of Titanic quickly became one of the first international news stories of the 20th-century and along with it came a slew of misinformation, notes the Titanic Newspaper Archives. Newfoundland, Canada Titanic Inquiry Project Titanic Newspaper Archives Apparently, that legacy of misinformation has followed the wreckage 110 years later. The room that appears in the video presumably contains the Grand Staircase, which was described as one of the most impressive features on board the RMS Titanic and the center of first-class activity. James Camerons 1997 film classic "Titanic" resurfaced the fame of the centerpiece. described Titanic Public Domain Back to the TikTok video. How do we know that is is fake? First, listen to the audio. You can hear dramatic screaming in the background, but there are no visible people in the frames. Lets also mention that handheld video cameras werent a thing in 1912. Sure, cameras in the 1910s were more mobile than those of previous decades, but The Living Image vintage camera museum notes that cameras of this era [were] still mainly of wooden, folding construction heavy and not easily mobile. There is surprisingly little genuine film footage of the Titanic both right before and after the disaster, but it does exist. British Path was a producer of newsreels throughout the 20th century, reported the pop-science website IFLScience. A six-minute newsreel produced in the aftermath of the disaster spans multiple scenes after the vessel sunk and the ensuing search for survivors. The first scenes from the footage below depict the Titanic as it left port for disaster. cameras in the 1910s notes British Path IFLScience the vessel sunk As you can see, authentic film footage from 1912 is much different than the clips shared to TikTok. Lastly, we checked the Instagram account associated with the TikTok profile. It led us to a person presumably named Taylor Tituss, who has a description in the profile reading, I make video edits for fun. Taylor Tituss "So, to clear things up, the video is fake," Tituss told Snopes, adding that he took the footage from a YouTube clip posted to the platform in May 2021. A caption accompanying the video, which had over 1.5 million views as of this writing, claimed the following: Mr Joseph Davies a 17 year old boy who was a Photographer on the Titanic the day it perished down in the Atlantic ocean in 1912.This footage was recovered in 2020 by a historian Investigating the sinking of the titanic.He commented "A camera was found in the Atlantic ocean where the titanic sits to rest. It was a miracle the camera was still intact after it was found in 1989.""After years and years of trying to recover the footage found in the films, they were unsuccessful until in 2020 when they became successful recovering the footage using state of the art technology." Mr Joseph died during the sinking of the titanic, the end bit where the video cuts out is when Mr Joseph drowned to his death trying to capture the sinking of the titanic. His remains were never found. We previously fact-checked the claim that an "old camera" from the Titanic was found deep in the ocean. That's also false, as is the below video: "old camera As we previously reported, a young girl named Bernice Palmer did capture photographs of the iceberg that Titanic collided with, as well as images of survivors. The Natural Museum of American History published that Palmer carried a handheld camera on the ship that responded to the Titanics distress call: reported published In 1900, the Eastman Kodak Company came out with the handheld box camera known as the Brownie. An immediate hit, more than 100,000 were sold in its first year. Canadian Bernice Bernie Palmer received a Kodak Brownie box camera, either for Christmas 1911 or for her birthday on January 10th, 1912. In early April, Bernie and her mother boarded the Cunard liner Carpathia in New York, for a Mediterranean cruise. Carpathia had scarcely cleared New York, when it received a distress call from the White Star liner Titanic on 14 April. It raced to the scene of the sinking and managed to rescue over 700 survivors from the icy North Atlantic. With her new camera, Bernice took pictures of the iceberg that sliced open the Titanics hull below the waterline and also took snapshots of some of the Titanic survivors. We've looked into a number of rumors and claims surrounding the sinking of Titanic (did we mention that the internet is obsessed?). Let's sink these rumors once and for all. Here are some other Snopes fact checks that you may enjoy: Was the Hidden Truth of Titanic Covered Up for Decades? Is This the Final Photograph of the Titanic? Were These Actual Mistakes in the 1997 Titanic Film? Did Divers Exploring Titanic Make Deeply Shocking New Discovery? Is the Door from Titanic on Display at Disney Springs? Sources Apr 15, 1912 CE: Titanic Sinks | National Geographic Society. https://education.nationalgeographic.org/resource/titanic-sinks. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Cameras of 1910s Era. Old Vintage Cameras, Old Fashion Camera. https://licm.org.uk/livingImage/1910Room.html. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Cameron, James. Titanic. Twentieth Century Fox, Paramount Pictures, Lightstorm Entertainment, 1997. Grand Staircase. Titanic Wiki, https://titanic.fandom.com/wiki/Grand_Staircase. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Grand Staircase of the Titanic. Wikipedia, 29 June 2022. Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Grand_Staircase_of_the_Titanic&oldid=1095579315. Interesting Clips on TikTok. TikTok, https://www.tiktok.com/@clipz_r_us_/video/7123906717020278062?_r=1&_d=secCgYIASAHKAESPgo8l7jDOO69%2F8FwrVlvu2ep8xdlY7z%2BELF9%2FTqCesNUwIiXYwhQ2PZfUzJ4G27YFO7FJsTC1abD8k5j58W4GgA%3D&checksum=4302d0d8b587eafda1c7e917ee37f34a2a7c46f1be0920292ec1b49166236792&language=en&preview_pb=0&sec_user_id=MS4wLjABAAAA-lkqwAHfStUeZkapDd_k_rjsEJRnnBbKhvq05zi0bVTQSKzFBdqKThheOb99NdEv&share_app_id=1233&share_item_id=7123906717020278062&share_link_id=f95dae62-97b3-4e7b-83c9-248e6b8c6dde&source=h5_m&timestamp=1659422273&u_code=dd6mf0739ffej6&ugbiz_name=Main&user_id=6844018106214646789&utm_campaign=client_share&utm_medium=android&utm_source=copy. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. This Haunting Video Is The Only Genuine Footage Of The Titanic Before And After It Sank. IFLScience, https://iflscience.com/this-haunting-video-is-the-only-genuine-footage-of-the-titanic-before-and-after-it-sank-59628. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Disaster Newspaper Archive. https://www.paperlessarchives.com/titanic_newspaper_archive.html. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Inquiry Project - Main Page. https://www.titanicinquiry.org/. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. Titanic Real Footage: Leaving Belfast for Disaster (1911-1912) | British Path. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o7sOAjtXE. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022. www.youtube.com, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=05o7sOAjtXE. Accessed 2 Aug. 2022.

False

Titanic left its port of Southhampton, England, for its transatlantic maiden voyage on April 10, 1912. Four days later, the nearly 900-foot vessel collided with an iceberg near Newfoundland, Canada, at 11:40 p.m. Two hours and 40 minutes later, the vessel broke in two and sank, according to the Titanic Inquiry Project. Because many of its passengers were noteworthy individuals, the sinking of Titanic quickly became one of the first international news stories of the 20th-century and along with it came a slew of misinformation, notes the Titanic Newspaper Archives.The room that appears in the video presumably contains the Grand Staircase, which was described as one of the most impressive features on board the RMS Titanic and the center of first-class activity. James Camerons 1997 film classic "Titanic" resurfaced the fame of the centerpiece. Lets also mention that handheld video cameras werent a thing in 1912. Sure, cameras in the 1910s were more mobile than those of previous decades, but The Living Image vintage camera museum notes that cameras of this era [were] still mainly of wooden, folding construction heavy and not easily mobile. There is surprisingly little genuine film footage of the Titanic both right before and after the disaster, but it does exist. British Path was a producer of newsreels throughout the 20th century, reported the pop-science website IFLScience. A six-minute newsreel produced in the aftermath of the disaster spans multiple scenes after the vessel sunk and the ensuing search for survivors. The first scenes from the footage below depict the Titanic as it left port for disaster.Lastly, we checked the Instagram account associated with the TikTok profile. It led us to a person presumably named Taylor Tituss, who has a description in the profile reading, I make video edits for fun. We previously fact-checked the claim that an "old camera" from the Titanic was found deep in the ocean. That's also false, as is the below video:As we previously reported, a young girl named Bernice Palmer did capture photographs of the iceberg that Titanic collided with, as well as images of survivors. The Natural Museum of American History published that Palmer carried a handheld camera on the ship that responded to the Titanics distress call:

FMD_train_1529

We have the highest (corporate tax rates) in the world right now.

01/03/2011

On the Jan. 2, 2011, edition of NBC's Meet the Press, Sen.-elect Pat Toomey, R-Pa., cited a striking statistic in urging the United States to lower its corporate tax rates. When asked by host David Gregory about possible areas where President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans could work together, Toomey suggested several areas, including taxes. "I think tax policy is a possible area, one with plenty of landmines but plenty of opportunities," Toomey said. "Simplify the code, lower rates. We should be lowering corporate tax rates because we have the highest in the world right now." (Later in the roundtable discussion, Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter repeated the statistic, but we'll check Toomey's quote here.) We wondered whether the U.S. really has the highest corporate tax rates in the world. Using the most straightforward definition of corporate tax rates, Toomey is right. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 32 large, industrialized democracies, ranks the combined corporate income tax rate in its member nations. That means the highest tax bracket for general corporate income, excluding taxes levied on specific products or services. For 2010, the U.S. ranks second to Japan by a fraction of a percentage point—39.54 percent for Japan to 39.21 percent for the U.S. But that figure is already outdated: Japan has recently moved to cut its rate for 2011 by 5 percentage points, leaving the U.S. with the highest corporate tax rate among OECD nations. But before we declare Toomey's statement true, let's dig a little deeper. The OECD rate is the statutory rate—that is, the top corporate tax rate on the books. However, many companies pay considerably less than that due to deductions and other exclusions. Adjusting for these factors produces a statistic called the effective tax rate. The World Bank has assembled data from 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate—27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand, and Thailand produced a higher effective rate in the World Bank study. And Japan's number should fall by the time next year's study comes out. The World Bank also produces another—and broader—statistic. This measure factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183—meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain, and Sweden. This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky. There's also broader context that Toomey doesn't address. In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes—not just corporate taxes—are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden. Still, if you rate Toomey on his specific wording by looking at corporate tax rates, he's right that the U.S. does now have the highest corporate tax rates on the books, at least among the biggest industrialized democracies, which is most economists' typical yardstick. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

True

On the Jan. 2, 2011, edition of NBC'sMeet the Press, Sen.-elect Pat Toomey, R-Pa., cited a striking statistic in urging the United States to lower its corporate tax rates.Asked by host David Gregory about possible areas where President Barack Obama and congressional Republicans can work together, Toomey suggested several areas, including taxes.I think tax policy is a possible area, one with plenty of landmines but plenty of opportunities,Toomey said. Simplify the code, lower rates. We should be lowering corporate tax rates because we have the highest in the world right now. (Later in the roundtable discussion, Yale Law School professor Stephen Carter repeated the statistic, but we'll check Toomey's quote here.)We wondered whether the U.S. really has the highest corporate tax rates in the world.Using the most straightforward definition of corporate tax rates, Toomey is right. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of 32 large, industrialized democracies,ranksthe combined corporate income tax rate in its member nations. That means the highest tax bracket for general corporate income, excluding taxes levied on specific products or services.For 2010, the U.S ranks second to Japan by a fraction of a percentage point -- 39.54 percent for Japan to 39.21 percent for the U.S. But that figure is already outdated: Japan has recently moved to cut its rate for 2011 by 5 percentage points, leaving the U.S. with the highest corporate tax rate among OECD nations.But before we declare Toomey's statement True, let's dig a little deeper.The OECD rate is the statutory rate -- that is, the top corporate tax rate on the books. But many companies pay considerably less than that, due to deductions and other exclusions. Adjusting for these factors produces a statistic called the effective tax rate.The World Bankhas assembled datafrom 183 nations and made a series of statistical adjustments to produce a full international comparison of effective tax rates. By this measurement, the U.S. rate is considerably lower than the published rate -- 27.6 percent. But in a comparative sense, that's still pretty high: Among larger international economies, only Japan, New Zealand and Thailand produced a higher effective rate in the World Bank study. And Japan's number should fall by the time next year's study comes out.The World Bank also produces another -- and broader -- statistic. This measure factors in not only the corporate profit tax but also a range of other taxes paid by businesses, including the cost of employee taxes borne by the employer. When the World Bank ranked countries from the lowest level of taxes to the highest, the U.S. ranked 124th out of 183 -- meaning corporate taxes were relatively high. A number of other large and/or democratic countries were higher, including Austria, Belgium, Brazil, China, France, Hungary, India, Italy, Spain and Sweden.This last measure provides a wider snapshot of U.S. tax policy toward businesses, but it also introduces some complications. Factoring in the employer-paid portion of labor taxes makes the corporate tax rate seem higher in countries that provide higher benefits such as pensions or health care through business taxes, while making the rate seem lower for countries that provide less generous benefits through the tax code. So making apples-to-apples comparisons can be tricky.There's also broader context that Toomey doesn't get into.In a previous item, we noted that when all taxes, including those such as personal income taxes and property taxes -- not just corporate taxes -- are taken into account and compared to gross domestic product, the U.S. doesn't rank near the top of the OECD table in total tax burden.Still, if you rate Toomey on his specific wording by looking at corporate tax rates, he's right that the U.S. does now have the highest corporate tax rates on the books, at least among the biggest industrialized democracies, which is most economists' typical yardstick. So we rate his statement Mostly True.

FMD_train_1631

Did a Trump Campaign Ad Use a Photo from Ukraine of Protesters Hitting Police?

07/23/2020

In July 2020, an advertisement for U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 reelection campaign started appearing on Trump's official Facebook page showing a comparison of two images entitled "Public Safety" and "Chaos and Violence." The "Public Safety" image showed Trump surrounded presumably by various members of law enforcement, while the "Chaos and Violence" image supposedly showed protesters beating up an American police officer: started appearing Shortly after this ad started running, media outlets such as the BBC noticed that the image on the right was not taken in 2020, and that it didn't show an incident from the United States. This image was actually taken in 2014, and shows a clash between police and protesters in Ukraine. BBC The BBC reported: A post by Donald Trump's official Facebook account purports to show violence in the US but is in fact of an event in another country. The advert shows one image of Mr Trump in a calm setting talking to police officers beside another of a security official being surrounded by protesters, saying: "Public safety vs chaos and violence". However, the image is a photo from a pro-democracy protest in Ukraine in 2014. This photograph was taken by photographer Mstyslav Chernov in February 2014 during a protest in Kyiv, Ukraine. The image is available via Wikipedia under a "Creative Commons" license. The terms for this photograph state that it is free to use as long as the photographer is given proper credit. But the advertisement on Trump's Facebook page offered no mention of the photographer. Wikipedia Creative Commons Here's an uncropped version of Chernov's photograph: Chernov confirmed to Business Insider that the Trump ad did indeed use his photograph from Ukraine in 2014. Chernov went on to say that the only way to combat this sort of deception is through "education and media literacy." Business Insider Chernov said: "Photography has always been used to manipulate public opinion. And with the rise of social media and the rise of populism, this is happening even more," he said. "The only way to combat this is through education and media literacy. When people learn to independently distinguish truth from lies, then the number of manipulations will decrease." Giles, Christopher. "Facebook: Trump Posts Misleading Ad Using Ukraine Photo." BBC. 22 July 2020. Jankowicz, Mia. "A New Trump Campaign Ad Depicting a Police Officer Being Attacked by Protesters is Actually a 2014 Photo of Pro-Democracy Protests in Ukraine." Business Insider. 22 July 2020.

True

In July 2020, an advertisement for U.S. President Donald Trump's 2020 reelection campaign started appearing on Trump's official Facebook page showing a comparison of two images entitled "Public Safety" and "Chaos and Violence." The "Public Safety" image showed Trump surrounded presumably by various members of law enforcement, while the "Chaos and Violence" image supposedly showed protesters beating up an American police officer:Shortly after this ad started running, media outlets such as the BBC noticed that the image on the right was not taken in 2020, and that it didn't show an incident from the United States. This image was actually taken in 2014, and shows a clash between police and protesters in Ukraine. This photograph was taken by photographer Mstyslav Chernov in February 2014 during a protest in Kyiv, Ukraine. The image is available via Wikipedia under a "Creative Commons" license. The terms for this photograph state that it is free to use as long as the photographer is given proper credit. But the advertisement on Trump's Facebook page offered no mention of the photographer. Chernov confirmed to Business Insider that the Trump ad did indeed use his photograph from Ukraine in 2014. Chernov went on to say that the only way to combat this sort of deception is through "education and media literacy."

FMD_train_39

Did President Donald Trump Donate His Entire $400,000 Salary to Rebuild Military Cemeteries?

08/03/2018

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, vowed that if elected he would forgo the $400,000 annual presidential salary. So far as president Trump has stuck to that promise, handing over checks every three months for various projects overseen by different government departments. vowed In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland.In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation.As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months.Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for "caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research." The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an Emerging Leaders program focused "on helping veterans start small businesses after military life." And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis.'Military Cemeteries'In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted:White House sent their spending report to Congress. This was in it: "Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!" Media gave this no coverage. Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the Turning Point USA organization, followed suit:News the media didnt report today:Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018One Facebook user garnered almost 150,000 shares within three days for a 31 July post which made similar claims:And on 2 August, "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet:These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily.AnalysisThere were two immediate problems with this set of claims. First, President Trump could not possibly donate his entire $400,000 annual salary for 2018 for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries, because he has already donated the first quarter's worth of that salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entirely separate initiative. So he only had three-quarters of his salary left to distribute, a mathematical fact that undermines the credibility of these claims.Second, the social media posts and articles making this claim were very thinly sourced, to say the least. Neither the viral Facebook post nor meme that we highlighted above cited any source, and the three news articles we mentioned all relied on the two tweets from Charlie Kirk and Mark Simone.Kirk's tweet cited no source whatsoever. Simone claimed that the information came from a White House "spending report" sent to Congress, which he asserted contained the following statement: "Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!"Simone did not include a link to that report in his tweet, and neither he nor Kirk responded to our requests for clarification or documentation.The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary.Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows:The Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary, instead he donated it to an amazing cause.... Its what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking! Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! AMAZING! Its so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much! Oh, and wheres the media coverage of this? Oh thats right, they dont cover anything good that the President does. So the claim that Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary for rebuilding military cemeteries actually comes from online rumors posted in 2017. This means the vast majority of claims made in July and August 2018 are false on this basis alone, since they stated that Trump's donation had happened "today." However, the claim was as false in 2017 as it was in 2018. As we outlined at the beginning of this article, President Trump distributed his 2017 salary in four separate chunks, to four separate projects, none of which involved military cemeteries. The White House had already announced two of those donations by 26 July 2017, so the viral rumor was demonstrably false even as it first emerged online, twelve months before Mark Simone and Charlie Kirk's viral tweets. The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind.The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods -- particularly the section that read as follows:While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to forego his paycheck. However, Article II of the United States Constitution mandates a presidential salary. In the first quarter, President Trump donated his pay to the Dept. of Interior for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries.The president did donate his first-quarter 2017 salary to the Department of the Interior, but not for the reconstruction of military cemeteries. This inaccuracy was then compounded in the subsequent online rumor, which took Forbes' accurate description of the donation as being "in the first quarter," and simply replaced it with "all $400,000" (i.e., the entire yearly salary).According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South).A press release described the project in detail:The donation will restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike where some of the most intense fighting of the battle occurred.There is a cemetery at Antietam National Battlefield, but President Trump's donation had nothing to do with it. ConclusionThe claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false.Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets.The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened. In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland. donated Battlefield In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation. press release addiction program As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months. Washington Post Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for "caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research." The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an Emerging Leaders program focused "on helping veterans start small businesses after military life." And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis. Veterans Affairs salary Associated Press 'Military Cemeteries' In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted: tweet White House sent their spending report to Congress. This was in it: "Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!" Media gave this no coverage. Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the Turning Point USA organization, followed suit: News the media didnt report today: Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018 @realDonaldTrump August 1, 2018 One Facebook user garnered almost 150,000 shares within three days for a 31 July post which made similar claims: And on 2 August, "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet: meme These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily. Gateway Pundit Right Scoop Social News Daily Analysis There were two immediate problems with this set of claims. First, President Trump could not possibly donate his entire $400,000 annual salary for 2018 for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries, because he has already donated the first quarter's worth of that salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entirely separate initiative. So he only had three-quarters of his salary left to distribute, a mathematical fact that undermines the credibility of these claims. Second, the social media posts and articles making this claim were very thinly sourced, to say the least. Neither the viral Facebook post nor meme that we highlighted above cited any source, and the three news articles we mentioned all relied on the two tweets from Charlie Kirk and Mark Simone. Kirk's tweet cited no source whatsoever. Simone claimed that the information came from a White House "spending report" sent to Congress, which he asserted contained the following statement: "Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!" Simone did not include a link to that report in his tweet, and neither he nor Kirk responded to our requests for clarification or documentation. The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary. report Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows: message The Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary, instead he donated it to an amazing cause... Its what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking! Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! AMAZING! Its so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much! Oh, and wheres the media coverage of this? Oh thats right, they dont cover anything good that the President does. So the claim that Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary for rebuilding military cemeteries actually comes from online rumors posted in 2017. This means the vast majority of claims made in July and August 2018 are false on this basis alone, since they stated that Trump's donation had happened "today." However, the claim was as false in 2017 as it was in 2018. As we outlined at the beginning of this article, President Trump distributed his 2017 salary in four separate chunks, to four separate projects, none of which involved military cemeteries. The White House had already announced two of those donations by 26 July 2017, so the viral rumor was demonstrably false even as it first emerged online, twelve months before Mark Simone and Charlie Kirk's viral tweets. The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind. here The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods -- particularly the section that read as follows: article While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to forego his paycheck. However, Article II of the United States Constitution mandates a presidential salary. In the first quarter, President Trump donated his pay to the Dept. of Interior for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries. The president did donate his first-quarter 2017 salary to the Department of the Interior, but not for the reconstruction of military cemeteries. This inaccuracy was then compounded in the subsequent online rumor, which took Forbes' accurate description of the donation as being "in the first quarter," and simply replaced it with "all $400,000" (i.e., the entire yearly salary). According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South). press release A press release described the project in detail: The donation will restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike where some of the most intense fighting of the battle occurred. There is a cemetery at Antietam National Battlefield, but President Trump's donation had nothing to do with it. Conclusion The claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false. Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets. The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened. U.S. Department of the Interior. "Press Release -- Secretary Zinke Accepts President Trump's Q1 Salary as a Donation for National Park Service." 3 April 2017. U.S. Department of the Interior. "Press Release -- President Trump's Salary and Matching Funds to Restore Antietam National Battlefield." 5 July 2017. Lima, Cristiano. "Trump Donates Third-Quarter Salary to HHS Opioid Efforts." Politico. 30 November 2017. Fahrenthold, David A. "Trump Donates $100,000 of His Salary to a New Federal Grant Program for Infrastructure Projects." The Washington Post. 13 February 2018. O'Connell, Jonathan and David A. Fahrenthold, David A. "10 Key Questions About the Ethical Issues Surrounding President Trump's Company." The Washington Post. 6 March 2018. Hoft, Jim. "Trump Gives $400,000 to Repair Military Cemeteries -- Liberal Media Ignores the Story." The Gateway Pundit. 1 August 2018. The Right Scoop. "Trump Just Donated His Presidential Salary to the Rebuilding of Military Cemeteries." 1 August 2018. Granger, Aaron. "Trump Donates His Salary to Rebuild Military Cemeteries -- Media Ignores Story." Social News Daily. 1 August 2018. White House Office. "2018 Annual Report to Congress on White House Office Personnel." 29 June 2018. White House Office. "2017 Annual Report to Congress on White House Office Personnel." 30 June 2017. Andrzejewski, Adam. "Trump's Leaner White House Payroll Projected to Save Taxpayers $22 Million." Forbes. 2 July 2017. Reints, Renae. "Trump Donated His 2018 Third-Quarter Salary to an Organization That Funds Alcoholism Research." Fortune. 25 January 2019. Sullivan, Kate. "Trump Donates Part of His Salary to Department of Homeland Security." CNN. 19 March 2019. "Trump Donates 3rd-Quarter Salary to Help Fight Opioid Crisis." The Associated Press. 26 November 2019. Updated to include information on President Trump's most recent salary donation.

False

During his 2016 presidential campaign, Republican candidate Donald Trump, a billionaire real estate developer, vowed that if elected he would forgo the $400,000 annual presidential salary. So far as president Trump has stuck to that promise, handing over checks every three months for various projects overseen by different government departments.In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland.In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation.As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months.Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for "caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research." The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an Emerging Leaders program focused "on helping veterans start small businesses after military life." And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis.'Military Cemeteries'In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted:White House sent their spending report to Congress. This was in it: "Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!" Media gave this no coverage. Charlie Kirk, a prominent conservative activist and founder of the Turning Point USA organization, followed suit:News the media didnt report today:Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018One Facebook user garnered almost 150,000 shares within three days for a 31 July post which made similar claims:And on 2 August, "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet:These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily.AnalysisThere were two immediate problems with this set of claims. First, President Trump could not possibly donate his entire $400,000 annual salary for 2018 for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries, because he has already donated the first quarter's worth of that salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs for an entirely separate initiative. So he only had three-quarters of his salary left to distribute, a mathematical fact that undermines the credibility of these claims.Second, the social media posts and articles making this claim were very thinly sourced, to say the least. Neither the viral Facebook post nor meme that we highlighted above cited any source, and the three news articles we mentioned all relied on the two tweets from Charlie Kirk and Mark Simone.Kirk's tweet cited no source whatsoever. Simone claimed that the information came from a White House "spending report" sent to Congress, which he asserted contained the following statement: "Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries!"Simone did not include a link to that report in his tweet, and neither he nor Kirk responded to our requests for clarification or documentation.The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary.Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows:The Trump administration released their annual report to Congress on White House Office Personnel. It includes the name, status, salary and position title of all 377 White House employees. The report also said that Trump decided not to take a dime of his salary, instead he donated it to an amazing cause.... Its what the report said Trump did with this salary that has everyone talking! Instead of taking his salary, Trump donated all $400,000 to the Department of the Interior where it will be used for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries! AMAZING! Its so great to have a President who loves our brave military men and women so much! Oh, and wheres the media coverage of this? Oh thats right, they dont cover anything good that the President does. So the claim that Trump donated his entire $400,000 annual salary for rebuilding military cemeteries actually comes from online rumors posted in 2017. This means the vast majority of claims made in July and August 2018 are false on this basis alone, since they stated that Trump's donation had happened "today." However, the claim was as false in 2017 as it was in 2018. As we outlined at the beginning of this article, President Trump distributed his 2017 salary in four separate chunks, to four separate projects, none of which involved military cemeteries. The White House had already announced two of those donations by 26 July 2017, so the viral rumor was demonstrably false even as it first emerged online, twelve months before Mark Simone and Charlie Kirk's viral tweets. The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind.The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods -- particularly the section that read as follows:While on the campaign trail, Donald Trump vowed to forego his paycheck. However, Article II of the United States Constitution mandates a presidential salary. In the first quarter, President Trump donated his pay to the Dept. of Interior for construction and repair needs at military cemeteries.The president did donate his first-quarter 2017 salary to the Department of the Interior, but not for the reconstruction of military cemeteries. This inaccuracy was then compounded in the subsequent online rumor, which took Forbes' accurate description of the donation as being "in the first quarter," and simply replaced it with "all $400,000" (i.e., the entire yearly salary).According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South).A press release described the project in detail:The donation will restore the historic Newcomer House on the Antietam battlefield, and will underwrite the replacement of 5,000 linear feet of deteriorated rail fencing along the Hagerstown Turnpike where some of the most intense fighting of the battle occurred.There is a cemetery at Antietam National Battlefield, but President Trump's donation had nothing to do with it. ConclusionThe claim that President Donald Trump decided either in 2017 or 2018 to donate his entire $400,000 salary to the reconstruction of military cemeteries, and that a blinkered, biased news media refused to report this, is false.Each of President Trump's actual salary donations (executed in quarterly disbursements, not once a year) has been reported by major news media, including some of the nation's biggest and most widely-read news outlets.The news media has not reported on the president's donation of his entire $400,000 annual salary for the reconstruction of military cemeteries due to the plainest reason of all: because it hasn't happened.In the first quarter of 2017, for example, President Trump donated $78,333 (his $100,000 salary for that quarter, after taxes) to the Department of the Interior, specifically for the National Park Service's maintenance of an historic Civil War site. His contribution was put towards two projects at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland.In July 2017, the White House announced in a press release that President Trump had donated his second-quarter salary to a science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) camp for children, overseen by the Education Department. He signed over his third-quarter salary to the Department of Health and Human Services for a public awareness campaign about opioid addiction, and the last of his 2017 salary went towards an infrastructure grant program overseen by the U.S. Department of Transportation.As the Washington Post has pointed out, some of the initiatives President Trump donated to were at uncertain stages of development or did not yet exist at the time he made his contribution, which prompted some additional scrutiny, but President Trump has nonetheless stayed true to his word and handed over a check representing his presidential salary every three months.Trump continued this tradition in 2018, donating his first-quarter salary to the Department of Veterans Affairs, a sum which then-Acting VA Secretary Robert Wilkie said had been earmarked for "caregiver support in the form of mental health and peer support programs, financial aid, education training, and research." The president donated another quarter's salary to the U.S. Small Business Administration for the purpose of establishing an Emerging Leaders program focused "on helping veterans start small businesses after military life." And the third quarter of his 2018 salary went to the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, according to the Associated Press. On 18 March 2019, Trump announced on Twitter he was donating a quarter of his salary to the Department of Homeland Security. On 26 November 2019, Trump announced he was donating again, this time to the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Health in order to help battle the nation's opioid crisis.In late July and early August 2018, scattered social media posts and memes claimed that the president had donated his entire $400,000 salary to the Department of the Interior, for the purpose of rebuilding military cemeteries. Many of these posts criticized the news media for not having reported on this purported donation. On 31 July 2018, for example, conservative radio host Mark Simone wrote, in a tweet that has since been deleted:Today @realDonaldTrump donated his $400,000 salary to rebuilding military cemeteries Charlie Kirk (@charliekirk11) August 1, 2018And on 2 August, "Uncle Sam's Misguided Children" posted a widely-shared meme on Facebook, which was almost identical to Charlie Kirk's tweet:These social media posts were accompanied by articles published by various right-wing web sites including the Gateway Pundit, the Right Scoop, and the viral content web site Social News Daily.The White House did send a somewhat related report to Congress a month before these claims emerged online. The White House Office's Annual Report to Congress on White House Personnel lists the names, titles and salaries of White House employees, and the 2018 report, published on 29 June, made no mention of President Trump's salary, nor his donations from that salary.Furthermore, we did not find the quotation that Simone included in his tweet in any official White House document or report to Congress. We did, however, find it in several online postings from the summer of 2017. As posted to the web site MyCrazyEmail.net on 25 July 2017, the message typically read as follows:The 2017 rumor, which was the source of Simone's tweet, claimed that the 2017 White House Office Personnel report had described President Trump's intention to donate his whole salary for repairs on military cemeteries. That official report, which can be viewed here, did not mention the president's salary, his donations from that salary, nor cemeteries of any kind.The original source of this flurry of inaccurate rumors appears to have been a 2 July 2017 article in Forbes magazine, about that year's White House Office Personnel report. The rumor which spread online later that summer plagiarized whole sections of the article, indicating that the Forbes piece provided a template for subsequent distortions and falsehoods -- particularly the section that read as follows:According to a Department of the Interior press release, President Trump's $78,333 donation formed part of a larger $263,545 fund which was used by the National Park Service to make repairs at Antietam National Battlefield in Maryland, site of the Civil War Battle of Antietam (or the Battle of Sharpsburg, as it was commonly known in the South).

FMD_train_1163

Theres nothing in the [RhodeMap RI] plan that takes away local government control and local zoning control.

01/16/2015

The RhodeMap RI long-term economic development plan continues to spark controversy throughout Rhode Island. This week, Republican legislators announced they would submit legislation to free municipalities from having to incorporate it into their local planning. This follows comments made by House Speaker Nicholas Mattiello in December to radio station WPRO-AM, where he stated that the plan is never going to come before the House or the Senate in its totality and that they were never going to vote on it. The controversy began in mid-September with the release of a 200-page draft of the plan, which is intended to guide efforts to improve the state's economy. During meetings that sometimes devolved into shouting matches, critics argued that if RhodeMap RI were implemented, local cities and towns would be relinquishing control to the federal government on affordable housing and land-use issues because the plan was funded, in part, by a $1.9 million U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development grant. Supporters contended that there is nothing in the plan that would infringe on individual property rights or local control over zoning. As the debate is likely to continue in the coming months, we decided to examine a statement made late last year by Kevin M. Flynn, associate director for planning for the state Division of Planning, who oversaw the plan's development. Addressing concerns about ceding municipal control, Flynn told EcoRI News that there is nothing in the plan that takes away local government control and local zoning control. We asked Flynn how he backed up his statement. While we awaited a response, we read through the RhodeMap RI plan and found nothing to indicate a threat to local control, suggesting Flynn's statement was accurate. However, things became more complicated when we examined other documents, including the Planning Division's grant application, the grant agreement, and HUD's description of the Sustainable Regional Planning Grant Program, the source of the $1.9 million. According to HUD, the program is intended to support planning efforts that integrate land use, economic and workforce development, transportation, and infrastructure investments. It also aims to enable local and state planners to consider issues such as energy use, climate change, public health, and social equity in economic planning. Agencies that apply for such grants must agree to generate plans aimed at producing, among other objectives, equitable land use planning that furthers the federal Fair Housing Act and complies with other civil rights laws. Additionally, those agencies must agree to analyze and overcome barriers to housing discrimination—in HUD's words, to affirmatively further fair housing. Critics view those provisions with alarm, arguing that they essentially give the federal government license to override state and local government control. They point to a long-running legal dispute involving New York's Westchester County as Exhibit A. When Flynn got back to us, he referred us to Article XIII of the Rhode Island Constitution, which empowers cities and towns to adopt and amend their charters and enact and amend local land use laws. He also cited state zoning enabling legislation, which delegates zoning authority to cities and towns. "A plan is simply that. A plan," Flynn said. "A plan has no power to modify constitutional or statutory law. The economic development plan could never supersede state law," he asserted. Looking for more impartial views, we reached out to more than ten national housing law experts. The four who responded agreed that communities do not cede zoning control when they accept HUD grants, but they had some caveats. For example, Brian Gilmore, an associate professor and director of the Housing Clinic at Michigan State University College of Law, stated, "I wouldn't say they've ceded total control. I would say they have obligations." Robert G. Schwemm, a professor at the University of Kentucky College of Law, echoed this sentiment, noting that it is illegal to use local zoning power to maintain segregation. However, Schwemm added that HUD has no direct power over local zoning authority. "HUD could deny the grant or take back money, but that's a remote possibility," he said. The idea of a fund cutoff is virtually unheard of, as historically, the Fair Housing Act has been enforced weakly. "They're doing more than has been done in the past," he said of the Obama administration. HUD's Annual Report on Fair Housing 2012-2013 indicated that the agency received 495 analyses by cities and towns examining fair housing choice, but took enforcement action in only five instances. Here's why Westchester County is significant. In 2006, a housing advocacy group sued the county in federal court, arguing that it had defrauded taxpayers by accepting $50 million in HUD grant money while failing to remove barriers to fair housing as required by its agreement with HUD. HUD later became a plaintiff in the suit. A judge ultimately agreed with the plaintiffs, and a landmark settlement was reached requiring the county to spend $50 million to build or acquire 750 affordable housing units in communities that were more than 90 percent white. Now, the county and HUD are disputing whether the county has complied with the settlement and whether it must amend its zoning ordinances to do so. The county has lost at least $20 million in HUD grants so far. We contacted the county for its perspective on HUD grants and local control. "The experience in Westchester has been caveat emptor," said Ned McCormack, Westchester communications director and senior adviser to County Executive Robert P. Astorino, using the Latin phrase for "buyer beware." "Once you take any money from HUD, your interpretation of what is expected in return and their interpretation vary widely." Our ruling: Kevin M. Flynn stated that nothing in the RhodeMap RI plan takes away local government control and local zoning control. Technically, there is nothing in the plan's language that appears to compromise local zoning law or control. However, his statement does not acknowledge the strings attached to the HUD grant. In accepting the $1.9 million from HUD to develop the plan, the state agreed to, among other things, expand housing opportunities for underserved populations based on race, ethnicity, or economic status, and is thus obligated to do so. In fact, HUD has taken legal action against grant recipients such as Westchester County that, in its view, failed to live up to their agreements. While rare, it has happened. For the record, in December, 26 Rhode Island cities and towns were awarded nearly $5.3 million in HUD grants through the Community Development Block Grant program. On balance, we rate Flynn's claim as partially accurate but lacking important details or context, which aligns with our definition of "Half True." (Correction: Article XIII of the Rhode Island Constitution spells out home rule for cities and towns. The article number was incorrect in the original version of this item.)

NEI

This week, Republican legislators saidthey would submit legislationto free municipalities from having to incorporate it in their local planning.That follows comments House Speaker Nicholas Mattiellomade in December to radio station WPRO-AM. Mattiello said, the plan is never going to come before the House or the Senate in its totality and were never going to vote on it.Addressing concerns about ceding municipal control,Flynn told EcoRI News,theres nothing in the plan that takes away local government control and local zoning control.

FMD_train_898

Justin Trudeau to Pardon All Prisoners Convicted of a Marijuana Offence

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:

FMD_train_558

Verification of facts by Beto O'Rourke

09/01/2018

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

NEI

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

FMD_train_94

No, Biden Didn't Give China Control Over the US Power Grid

02/19/2021

In mid-to-late February 2021, readers emailed Snopes asking about memes and stories posted online that claimed U.S. President Joe Biden had signed an executive order granting the Chinese government access to or control over the U.S. power grid. stories For example, the headline on an opinion piece published in the Washington Examiner on Jan. 27, 2021, read, "Bidens order could let China control US electric grid." headline Others took it a step further to falsely claim that Biden gave China access to the U.S. power grid, and it was China that caused millions of Texans to lose power during a brutal cold snap in February 2021. Here is one example, with the Twitter user's name cropped out for privacy reasons: millions First off, Biden didn't sign an executive order granting China access to or control over the U.S. power grid system. Biden signed an executive order suspending for 90 days an order by his predecessor, Donald Trump, that bars installation of equipment purchased from foreign adversaries into electrical infrastructure, so Biden's administration officials could evaluate Trump's order. But that doesn't mean Biden gave China access to U.S. power grids. We will explain below. The U.S. is served by three electrical grids one that interconnects the western half of the U.S. and western Canada, another that interconnects the eastern half of the U.S. and eastern Canada, and a third grid that is the independent system serving most of Texas. These, along with a fourth grid serving Quebec, are usually referred to as the bulk-power system (BPS). three electrical grids On May 1, 2020, Trump signed an executive order entitled "Securing the United States Bulk-Power System." Trump's order prohibited the purchase and use of bulk-power system electrical equipment "designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary" to mitigate what it said was the potential threat of a cyberattack by foreign adversaries hacking into U.S. electrical systems. entitled On Dec. 17, 2020, Dan Brouillette, Trump's secretary of energy, issued a prohibition order stemming from Trump's May 1, 2020, executive order. Brouillette's order "prohibits utilities that supply critical defense facilities (CDF) from procuring from the Peoples Republic of China, specific BPS electric equipment that poses an undue risk to the BPS, the security or resilience of critical infrastructure, the economy, national security, or safety and security of Americans." prohibition order In other words, Brouillette's order barred equipment purchased from China from being used in critical electrical infrastructure in the U.S. On Jan. 20, 2021, Biden signed an executive order entitled, "Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis." The order suspended Trump's May 1 order for 90 days. entitled During those 90 days, Biden's order directs the U.S. secretary of energy and director of the Office of Management and Budget to "jointly consider whether to recommend that a replacement order be issued." That does not mean that, while the order is suspended, China has 90 days of free access to electrical grids serving the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy said that during the suspension, utility providers must still refrain from installing equipment specified in Brouillette's prohibition order: said prohibition order [During] this 90-day review period, Responsible Utilities will refrain from installation of bulk-power system electric equipment or programmable components specified in Attachment 1 of the Prohibition Order that is subject to foreign adversaries ownership, control, or influence, and that Responsible Utilities will continue to work with the Department on identifying and mitigating supply chain vulnerabilities. To ensure that security of the Nations bulk-power system is strengthened during this suspension, the Department requests that Responsible Utilities designate critical defense facilities as a priority load in the applicable system load shedding and restoration plans. The Texas power grid is independently operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), taking its policy direction primarily from state officials, not the federal government. primarily The Texas power grid didn't fail because of interference by China or any other external entity. It failed because when the state experienced Arctic temperatures that it isn't used to experiencing, demand for electricity spiked beyond what the grid was prepared to handle. State officials also failed to weatherize power-generating infrastructure from cold temperatures, which resulted in problems like natural gas supply lines and wind turbines freezing. spiked beyond We reached out to the White House seeking further clarification on this subject but didn't get a response in time for publication. We will update this story when and if we hear back.

False

In mid-to-late February 2021, readers emailed Snopes asking about memes and stories posted online that claimed U.S. President Joe Biden had signed an executive order granting the Chinese government access to or control over the U.S. power grid.For example, the headline on an opinion piece published in the Washington Examiner on Jan. 27, 2021, read, "Bidens order could let China control US electric grid."Others took it a step further to falsely claim that Biden gave China access to the U.S. power grid, and it was China that caused millions of Texans to lose power during a brutal cold snap in February 2021. Here is one example, with the Twitter user's name cropped out for privacy reasons:The U.S. is served by three electrical grids one that interconnects the western half of the U.S. and western Canada, another that interconnects the eastern half of the U.S. and eastern Canada, and a third grid that is the independent system serving most of Texas. These, along with a fourth grid serving Quebec, are usually referred to as the bulk-power system (BPS).On May 1, 2020, Trump signed an executive order entitled "Securing the United States Bulk-Power System." Trump's order prohibited the purchase and use of bulk-power system electrical equipment "designed, developed, manufactured, or supplied, by persons owned by, controlled by, or subject to the jurisdiction or direction of a foreign adversary" to mitigate what it said was the potential threat of a cyberattack by foreign adversaries hacking into U.S. electrical systems.On Dec. 17, 2020, Dan Brouillette, Trump's secretary of energy, issued a prohibition order stemming from Trump's May 1, 2020, executive order. Brouillette's order "prohibits utilities that supply critical defense facilities (CDF) from procuring from the Peoples Republic of China, specific BPS electric equipment that poses an undue risk to the BPS, the security or resilience of critical infrastructure, the economy, national security, or safety and security of Americans."On Jan. 20, 2021, Biden signed an executive order entitled, "Executive Order on Protecting Public Health and the Environment and Restoring Science to Tackle the Climate Crisis." The order suspended Trump's May 1 order for 90 days.That does not mean that, while the order is suspended, China has 90 days of free access to electrical grids serving the United States. The U.S. Department of Energy said that during the suspension, utility providers must still refrain from installing equipment specified in Brouillette's prohibition order:The Texas power grid is independently operated by the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), taking its policy direction primarily from state officials, not the federal government.The Texas power grid didn't fail because of interference by China or any other external entity. It failed because when the state experienced Arctic temperatures that it isn't used to experiencing, demand for electricity spiked beyond what the grid was prepared to handle. State officials also failed to weatherize power-generating infrastructure from cold temperatures, which resulted in problems like natural gas supply lines and wind turbines freezing.

FMD_train_513

Did Derek Chauvin 'Under-Report Half a Million Dollars in Income'?

06/28/2021

In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..." wrote That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day. popular Reddit post On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020. sentenced The claim that Chauvin "underreported half a million dollars in income" stems from an ongoing criminal case against him, and his former wife Kellie May Chauvin. However, Chauvin has not yet entered a plea in that case, and has not been tried or convicted, as of June 28, 2021. As a result, we are issuing a rating of "Unproven," for now. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly. A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin. expressed an intention On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota." charged The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: complaint The Chauvins did not file tax returns in 2016, 2017, and 2018. The filed tax returns for years 2014 and 2015 did not report income received from D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. Tax returns for years 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019 filed on June 26, 2020, did not report D. Chauvin's off-duty security work and K. Chauvin's photography income. According to prosecutors, the Chauvins under-reported a total of $464,433 in income between 2014 and 2019, just short of the "half a million dollars" included in the widely-shared tweet from June 2021: Source: Washington County Attorney's Office However, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes. could potentially enter pleas Since Derek Chauvin has not yet pleaded guilty or been convicted of the charges against him, and neither might ever occur, the claim that he "under-reported half a million dollars in income" was unproven, as of June 28. When the case is resolved, we will update this fact check accordingly.

NEI

In June 2021, as former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin faced sentencing for the murder of George Floyd, one widely-shared social media post accused Chauvin of other crimes, namely tax evasion. On June 25, @davenewworld_2 wrote on Twitter: "Derek Chauvin underreported half a million dollars in income while owing $20,000+ in taxes, and then fucking murdered George Floyd over an alleged $20 counterfeit bill..."That tweet, and the claims it contained, were further promoted in a popular Reddit post, on the following day.On June 25, Hennepin County Judge Peter Cahill sentenced Chauvin to 22 and a half years in prison for the murder of Floyd, a Black man who died after Chauvin kneeled on his neck for more than nine minutes, in May 2020.A brief note: Kellie May and Derek Chauvin divorced in February 2021, and during those proceedings she expressed an intention to change her last name. However, we have not been able to find any record of that name change, so this article refers to her using her last-known last name, Chauvin. On July 22, 2020, the office of Washington County Attorney Pete Orput charged the Chauvins with nine counts each of felony tax evasion, claiming that they "failed to file income tax returns and pay state income taxes, underreported and underpaid taxes on income generated from various employments each year, and failed to pay proper sales tax on a vehicle purchased in Minnesota."The complaint against Derek Chauvin summarized the details of their alleged offenses, as follows: Source: Washington County Attorney's OfficeHowever, the Chauvins have not yet entered pleas in this case, as of June 28, 2021. An omnibus hearing, at which the two defendants could potentially enter pleas, was scheduled for June 30, the Washington County Attorney's office told Snopes.

FMD_train_411

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

07/14/2023

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

False

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

FMD_train_534

The largest U.S. companies would owe $620 billion in U.S. taxes on the cash they store in tax havens.

04/11/2016

Getting companies to pay more in taxes is one of the pillars of Bernie Sanders plans for America. The extra revenue plays a key role in everything from universal health care, to tuition-free college, to rebuilding the nations aging water mains, bridges and highways. How much does he think is there? The largest U.S. companies would owe $620 billion in U.S. taxes on the cash they store in tax havens, SanderstweetedApril 6, 2016. Thats a fair chunk of change, and we thought wed see if it held up. By the way, theres no single definition of a tax haven. The term covers both profits from overseas subsidiaries and the use of offshore accounts in places like Bermuda. The common thread is money is booked in places with lower taxes than the United States. The Sanders campaign directed us to ajoint studyfrom Citizens for Tax Justice and US PIRG, both left-leaning organizations. Their analysis began with the more than $2.1 trillion that Fortune 500 companies are holding in accumulated profits offshore for tax purposes. When the foreign subsidiary of a U.S. multinational turns a profit, the money is taxed at the rate where the subsidiary is based. Uncle Sam doesnt get a penny until the multinational brings the money home. That gets a little confusing because the money might actually be in the United States, but it isnt on the books of the U.S. parent. In any event, for tax purposes, most of those funds are not formally repatriated or brought back to the United States. The logic is simple: Why pay a higher rate in the United States, formally as high as 35 percent, when you might be paying a fifth that much in a foreign country, such as Ireland? The Citizens for Tax Justice/US PIRG analysts looked atthe 57 corporations that actually told regulators how big their tax bill would be if they brought the money home. These 57 companies would owe $184.4 billion in additional federal taxes, the report said. The analysts made some assumptions and applied the results to the companies that didnt release this information. The total for all Fortune 500 companies combined? They would collectively owe $620 billion in additional federal taxes. We asked independent tax scholars what they thought of that estimate. Some of them said it was in the ballpark. Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, said Sanders might actually be underestimating. Harvey pointed to the foreign earnings that multinationals report as indefinitely reinvested. Officially, thetotal is about $2.3 trillion. But Harvey thinks that overlooks a lot of cash. The total unrepatriated foreign earnings would be even higher because companies like Apple and Pfizer do not label all undistributed foreign earnings as indefinitely reinvested, Harvey said. If one assumes that U.S. multinational corporations have approximately $2.5 trillion to $3 trillion of unrepatriated foreign earnings, and the average tax rate on most undistributed foreign earnings is less than 10 percent (in many cases close to 0 percent), then a $620 billion estimate is very reasonable, and may be low. Edward Kleinbard, professor of law at the University of Southern California and a former chief of staff at the U.S. Congress' Joint Committee on Taxation, took a different approach, and reached approximately the same conclusion. Kleinbard took theJoint Committee on Taxationsestimate of how much revenue would come from a one-time 14 percent tax on those foreign earnings kept overseas. This is in fact what President Barack Obama has proposed in his latest budget. The net haul from that would be about $195 billion. Using that figure, Kleinbard estimated how much would come in if the rate were 35 percent, rather than 14 percent. You get to $488 billion, he said. Thats not perfect, because of how foreign tax credits (offsets to U.S. taxes) would have to be handled, but its the right ballpark. Thats less than the $620 billion Sanders cited, but as Kleinbard put it, it's a honkin' big number. The banking giantCredit Suisseestimated the total new revenues at $533 billion. Edmund Outslay, professor of taxation at Michigan State University, thinks Sanders overshot the mark. Outslay told PolitiFact that he questions a key assumption in the study behind Sanders number. The study estimates an average tax rate of 6 percent that all Fortune 500 companies are paying overseas today. Because any foreign tax bill is deducted from what a firm owes Washington, the lower the foreign tax rate, the higher the potential revenues for the United States. Outslay thinks 6 percent is unrealistic. Some studies I have seen estimate a foreign tax rate of about 16.5 percent, Outslay said. If this number is more accurate, the total tax to be gained (would be) $550 billion. At 25 percent, the net U.S. tax would only be $320 billion. Outslay himself leans more toward a $300 billion figure. In addition to thinking multinationals are paying a higher rate overseas, he also said in most cases, the foreign earnings are actually invested in bricks and mortar. Those dollars are not cash in the way Sanders talked about this. How the IRS would treat that money is unclear. All this leaves us with a range of estimates of the potential tax revenues, ranging from about $300 billion (Outslay), to $490 billion (Kleinbard), to $550 billion (Credit Suisse), to over $620 billion (Harvey). Our ruling Sanders said that if American multinational corporations had to pay taxes on the profits they made overseas, they would owe $620 billion. This is at the high end of the estimates we collected. Sanders also described the overseas holdings as cash. According to one expert we reached, a lot of that money might be invested in factories and other hard infrastructure and might not be available for tax collections. Still, the mid-range estimate from credible sources is in the $500 billion to $550 billion range. All the numbers cited were relatively high. We rate Sanders estimate Mostly True.

True

The largest U.S. companies would owe $620 billion in U.S. taxes on the cash they store in tax havens, SanderstweetedApril 6, 2016.The Sanders campaign directed us to ajoint studyfrom Citizens for Tax Justice and US PIRG, both left-leaning organizations. Their analysis began with the more than $2.1 trillion that Fortune 500 companies are holding in accumulated profits offshore for tax purposes.Richard Harvey, a former partner at the accounting firm Pricewaterhouse Coopers and now at Villanova School of Law, said Sanders might actually be underestimating. Harvey pointed to the foreign earnings that multinationals report as indefinitely reinvested. Officially, thetotal is about $2.3 trillion. But Harvey thinks that overlooks a lot of cash.Kleinbard took theJoint Committee on Taxationsestimate of how much revenue would come from a one-time 14 percent tax on those foreign earnings kept overseas. This is in fact what President Barack Obama has proposed in his latest budget. The net haul from that would be about $195 billion.The banking giantCredit Suisseestimated the total new revenues at $533 billion.

FMD_train_613

Did Donald Trump claim that the Earth is flat?

11/29/2016

In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther: flat-earther mocked up Speaking to reporters in Baltimore on Monday, following the 138th conference for the National Guard Association of the United States, the Republican Partys presidential nominee revealed that he is a member of a growing population known generally as flat earth truthers. I fly a lot, and I mean a lot. No one flies more than me. Listen, I own a jet. I own a 757, beautiful plane, its the best plane! If the world were round, believe me, I would know! The comments came in response to a question from AP reporter, Charles Darr, regarding the future role of the National Guard, as private companies proliferate space travel. Mr. Trump, if elected, are you willing to increase taxes in order to meet the growing budget demands of the National Guard, as existential threats from our enemies grow along with the advancement of space travel technology? Darr asked. The presidential hopeful replied that such a future is nonsense, adding that the round earth people, and you know who they are, these people have an agenda. CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories. publish While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church. (785) 273-0325

False

In December 2016, rumors flew about Donald Trump's personal beliefs and connections as he continued to announce picks for his incoming administration. One such rumor was a meme with a quote that purported to be from the President-elect, painting him as a flat-earther:CNN.com.de (like many pages of its ilk) is not affiliated with the legitimate news organization CNN. The site uses a web address similar to CNN.com's in order to trick readers into believe that they are reading genuine news items. However, this web site does not publish factual stories.While there is no disclaimer on the web site that specifically states its content is fictional, it does provide several hints that its stories are hoaxes. For instance, the provided contact number of (785) 273-0325 does not lead to CNN's, but that of the Westboro Baptist Church.

FMD_train_312

Is It Illegal to Peel an Orange in a California Hotel Room?

01/26/2021

Readers love to chortle over lists of "loony laws," or regulations that supposedly make it illegal to perform acts that range from the benign to the ridiculous. Various examples claim laws do, or did, exist that prohibit activities that are highly improbable or downright impossible (e.g., fishing for sharks in a landlocked state), ban actions so mundane that government has no conceivable interest in regulating them (e.g., barbers eating onions on Sundays), establish rules that seemingly defy common sense (e.g., requiring fire engines to stop at red lights), or are laughably anachronistic (e.g., mandating that all taxis be outfitted with spittoons). Nearly all such cited laws fall into one of three categories: Long, obsolete (and since stricken) laws that addressed conditions or concerns which no longer exist, interpretations of laws that posit a unrealistically narrow or far-fetched application of them, and out-and-out fabrications. One very common example of a purported "loony law" holds that it is illegal to peel oranges in hotel rooms in the state of California: No such law exists, however, and the belief that it does stems from the category of "unrealistically narrow applications." Back in the early 20th century, California had a statute on the books (Act 6236) covering "the sanitation of food producing establishments, places where food is stored, prepared, kept or manufactured and in which food is distributed." Under that act, hotel rooms were deemed insufficiently sanitary premises for the storage and preparation of food, for obvious reasons. Nothing in that law specifically barred peeling oranges in hotel rooms, however. Peeling oranges was just one of the many, many activities that could be considered a form of food preparation or manufacture, along with cutting, slicing, chopping, dicing, peeling, skinning, trimming, or deboning any type of meat or produce or other consumable substance. More important, this statute was primarily a commercial regulation, aimed at preventing the use of hotel rooms as facilities for storing and preparing foodstuffs that would be served, distributed, or sold to others for human consumption. It was not intended to, and certainly would never have been used to, prohibit or punish hotel guests who might simply peel a single orange or banana in the privacy of their room for personal consumption. We don't know for certain how this law gained the current absurdly narrow interpretation that it specifically barred the peeling of oranges in hotel rooms, but that characterization is a very old one, as demonstrated by the following clipping of a newspaper article published in a Santa Cruz, California, newspaper in 1932: newspaper article

False

We don't know for certain how this law gained the current absurdly narrow interpretation that it specifically barred the peeling of oranges in hotel rooms, but that characterization is a very old one, as demonstrated by the following clipping of a newspaper article published in a Santa Cruz, California, newspaper in 1932:

FMD_train_1303

Was Fauci the Villain 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 the Oscar for Best Actor, Supporting Actor, and Best Makeup and Hairstyling. Various aspects of the movie's script do not align with the claim that the villain in the film was modeled after Fauci, and we could not find any public statements made by anyone involved with the film indicating that the antagonist was based on him. The film is a classic tale of the heroic man who uses his ingenuity and grit to confront the uncaring and callous bureaucrats of Big Government. Although the protagonist in the story is a real person, the antagonists appear to be fictional characters. We do not know whether they are based on real people or amalgamations of individuals the protagonist encountered during his life. McConaughey plays Ron Woodroof, a hard-living Dallas electrician and rodeo rider who is diagnosed with HIV in 1985. At that time, an HIV/AIDS diagnosis was a death sentence because there was no treatment for the new epidemic. Woodroof is placed in a clinical trial for azidothymidine (AZT). The thrust of the movie is that there is a conspiracy between the government and the medical establishment to push "toxic" AZT on HIV patients, while Woodroof circumvents the system by going to Mexico and obtaining an unapproved cocktail of drugs and supplements from a doctor who lost his license to practice in the U.S. Woodroof then returns to form the Dallas Buyers Club with a transgender woman named Rayon (Jared Leto), where they illicitly sell the cocktail, initially for profit and later to save lives, only to be pursued by an FDA agent. The antagonist (or "bad guy") in the film is an FDA investigator, which is not an equivalent position to the one Fauci held at the time the events portrayed in the film took place. Fauci was an important public health figure during the HIV/AIDS epidemic, but he was not an FDA agent. He spent his career at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (part of the National Institutes of Health), becoming that agency's director in 1984, one year before the events in the film. The Washington Post reported in 2014 that neither the portrayal of AZT nor Woodroof's legal troubles were accurate in the film, noting, "AZT is actually a very effective therapy against HIV/AIDS." It was known to prolong life after a diagnosis. While it is true that the doses prescribed early in the epidemic were often too high, resulting in deleterious effects, those effects could easily be countered by lowering the dose or stopping the drug. The Post noted that AZT became an important part of lifesaving HIV/AIDS treatment for about a decade and, as such, saved "millions" of lives. The film included a title card at the end admitting as much. Its portrayal of the FDA's actions regarding such buyers clubs was also factually problematic, as in reality, the FDA did cooperate with them. Peter Staley, an HIV/AIDS activist who informally consulted on the film, told the Post: "The true story was that we made the system bend, and we used the system and needed the system. I wouldn't be alive today without the companies this film paints as evil, and I wouldn't be alive today without civil servants at the FDA who worked incredibly hard in the 1990s to get these drugs out there quickly." Furthermore, Woodroof's issues with the FDA largely stemmed from "his reluctance to stop using harmful treatments." In sum, there is no evidence that the antagonist in the movie was based on Fauci, and even if that were the case, that does not mean one should draw any real-world conclusions about Fauci based on a movie made for entertainment purposes.

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_1628

A remarkable carburetor

12/07/1999

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

True

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

FMD_train_1536

Did a Russian Asbestos Company Put Trump's Face on Their Product?

07/20/2018

On 25 June 2018, a Russian mining company named Uralasbest, which is one of the worlds largest producers of asbestos, posted a message of support for President Trump on their official Facebook and VK (a Russian version of Facebook) pages. The post included photographs of packed asbestos material adorned with the face of Trump and the text "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States." largest Facebook VK Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in construction projects for its fire resistant properties, but research has since linked it to a variety of cancers, most notably lung cancer and mesothelioma. cancers The non-profit health and environmental protection Environmental Working Group, who first called attention to the Uralasbest post, provided an English translation of the text that was shared alongside the image: "Donald is on our side! ... He supported the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos '100% safe after application.'" provided These images, as they were posted to the official social media accounts of Uralasbest, are genuine. Also genuine is President Trumps support of the asbestos industry. Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was 100% safe once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-led conspiracy: "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented." Uralasbest opined In June, when Uralasbest posted their message of support, then-Administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt had recently announced new interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act that could allow for new uses of asbestos to be approved in the United States. While this move would not allow for previously banned uses to be considered, it was a reversal of Obama-era rules that barred the EPA from considering any new uses for asbestos. new interpretations rules Milman, Oliver. "Russian Mining Firm Puts Trump's Face on Its Asbestos Products. The Guardian. 11 July 2018. American Cancer Society. "Asbestos and Cancer Risk. Accessed 20 July 2018. Environmental Working Group. "Russian Asbestos Giant Praises Trump Administration Actions to Keep Deadly Carcinogen Legal. 11 July 2018. Goodkind, Nicole. "Donald Trump Called Asbestos Poisoning a Mob-Led Conspiracy, Now His EPA Wont Evaluate Asbestos Already in Homes. Huffington Post. 8 June 2018. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Asbestos Ban and Phase-Out Federal Register Notices Archived from 19 January 2017.

True

On 25 June 2018, a Russian mining company named Uralasbest, which is one of the worlds largest producers of asbestos, posted a message of support for President Trump on their official Facebook and VK (a Russian version of Facebook) pages. The post included photographs of packed asbestos material adorned with the face of Trump and the text "Approved by Donald Trump, 45th President of the United States."Asbestos is a mineral that was once widely used in construction projects for its fire resistant properties, but research has since linked it to a variety of cancers, most notably lung cancer and mesothelioma. The non-profit health and environmental protection Environmental Working Group, who first called attention to the Uralasbest post, provided an English translation of the text that was shared alongside the image: "Donald is on our side! ... He supported the head of the United States Environmental Protection Agency, Scott Pruitt, who stated that his agency would no longer deal with negative effects potentially derived from products containing asbestos. Donald Trump supported a specialist and called asbestos '100% safe after application.'"These images, as they were posted to the official social media accounts of Uralasbest, are genuine. Also genuine is President Trumps support of the asbestos industry. Trump once opined, in his 1997 book The Art of the Comeback, that efforts to reduce and regulate asbestos (a material he claimed was 100% safe once applied) in building construction were part of a mob-led conspiracy: "I believe that the movement against asbestos was led by the mob, because it was often mob-related companies that would do the asbestos removal. Great pressure was put on politicians, and as usual, the politicians relented."In June, when Uralasbest posted their message of support, then-Administrator of the EPA Scott Pruitt had recently announced new interpretations of the Toxic Substances Control Act that could allow for new uses of asbestos to be approved in the United States. While this move would not allow for previously banned uses to be considered, it was a reversal of Obama-era rules that barred the EPA from considering any new uses for asbestos.

FMD_train_1608

: Brand New iPhone 6 for $1

07/18/2013

Claim: Apple is selling brand new iPhone 6S units for $1 each. Example: [Collected via Facebook, October 2015] Apple iPhones for $1....is it a trap/scam? Origins: Yet another form of the ubiquitous "sweepstakes scam" hit social media in October 2015, with the repeated posting of a Facebook item promoting "Apple's Shocking 2015 Sale," under which customers "Can Now Get a Brand New iPhone 6 for $1." Those who clicked on the link underlying such posts were taken to a page imitating a news article, reporting that "As part of a special promotion, Apple is working with its trusted distribution partner, FunkyClock, to give away iPhone 6S's that cost 99% off the regular retail price." However, FunkyClock isn't a "trusted distribution partner" of Apple, and they aren't participating in a promotion to "give away" iPhone 6S or sell them for $1 each. FunkyClock is a game site, and users who read the fine print for this promotion will note that they have to sign up with FunkyClock, supply a credit card number, play at least 10 complete games, and agree to pay a hefty monthly subscription fee of $119, all to gain a one in 500 chance of winning a "free" iPhone 6. Of course, $1 isn't the price of a "New iPhone 6S"; it's a charge that will be applied against the credit card number you supply to FunkyClock to ensure it's valid (and thus open to future additional charges). It's also unlikely there will be any actual "winners" of "free" iPhone 6S in this promotion, but even if there were, agreeing to pay $119 per month to gain a 0.2% chance of winning an iPhone that retails in the $700-800 range is a very bad bet indeed. Last updated: 13 October 2015.

False

But FunkyClock isn't a "trusted distribution partner" of Apple, and they aren't participating in a promotion to "give away' iPhone 6s or sell them for $1 each. FunkyClock is a game site, and users who read the fine print for this promotion will note that they have to sign up with FunkyClock, supply a credit card number, play at least 10 complete games, and agree to pay a hefty monthly subscription fee of $119, all to gain a one in 500 chance at winning a "free" iPhone 6.

FMD_train_236

CDC Recommends Mothers Stop Breastfeeding to Boost Vaccine Efficacy?

01/19/2015

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

False

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

FMD_train_1574

Does This Pic Show a Real Animal Called a 'Carpet Shark'?

07/11/2022

A photograph supposedly depicting the so-called carpet shark, also known as the tasseled wobbegong, has been shared on social media since at least November 2021. Though there is no evidence of digital editing, it does not genuinely depict a tasseled wobbegong which is a real species of carpet shark but rather an entirely different species of fish found along the eastern seaboard of the U.S. real species The Snopes newsroom came across the photograph in July 2022 when it was shared to Reddit's r/interestingasfuck subreddit. That post included a caption that framed the image as an underwater snapshot of the tasseled wobbegonging in the "shallow coral reefs off northern Australia, New Guinea, and adjacent islands." That post But that caption was misleading. The photograph does not show a tasseled wobbegong. Rather, it depicts a goosefish, which is also known as a monkfish or American angler. While we were not able to verify the exact origins of the image in question, we do not doubt that the photograph is authentic, based on similar images showing the goosefish. A quick reverse-image search showed that the photograph has been circulating on social media in various iterations since at least 2021. quick reverse-image Tineye Since that time, several social media users pointed out that it was erroneous to call the photographed fish a tasseled wobbegong when it was really a goosefish. several pointed out Sometimes called a monkfish or American angler, the goosefish (scientific name Lophius americanus) is found in the north and mid-Atlantic. The fish is described by NOAA as having mottled dark brown to olive-green skin on top and whitish skin underneath. Some say the goosefish has a tadpole-like appearance, characterized by a broad head and large mouth. described by NOAA Goosefish are ambush predators. Though the seafloor-looking fish typically reach lengths of up to 4 feet, they can disappear into their surroundings and sit in camouflage along the ocean floor. The bottom-dwellers use their modified spines like fishing poles to lure prey small fish including other goosefish toward their mouths. In addition to fish, goosefish also eat crustaceans, mollusks, seabirds, and diving ducks, notes NOAA. While the goosefish finds its home waters along the eastern coast of the U.S., the tasseled wobbegong lives in the waters of northern Australia and is a member of the carpet shark family, a predatory species named for its seafloor-dwelling habits. tasseled wobbegong carpet shark Tasselled Wobbegong. Oceana, https://oceana.org/marine-life/tasselled-wobbegong/. Accessed 11 July 2022.Fisheries, NOAA. Monkfish | NOAA Fisheries. NOAA, 5 May 2022, https://www.fisheries.noaa.gov/species/monkfish.

NEI

A photograph supposedly depicting the so-called carpet shark, also known as the tasseled wobbegong, has been shared on social media since at least November 2021. Though there is no evidence of digital editing, it does not genuinely depict a tasseled wobbegong which is a real species of carpet shark but rather an entirely different species of fish found along the eastern seaboard of the U.S.The Snopes newsroom came across the photograph in July 2022 when it was shared to Reddit's r/interestingasfuck subreddit. That post included a caption that framed the image as an underwater snapshot of the tasseled wobbegonging in the "shallow coral reefs off northern Australia, New Guinea, and adjacent islands."A quick reverse-image search showed that the photograph has been circulating on social media in various iterations since at least 2021.Since that time, several social media users pointed out that it was erroneous to call the photographed fish a tasseled wobbegong when it was really a goosefish.Sometimes called a monkfish or American angler, the goosefish (scientific name Lophius americanus) is found in the north and mid-Atlantic. The fish is described by NOAA as having mottled dark brown to olive-green skin on top and whitish skin underneath. Some say the goosefish has a tadpole-like appearance, characterized by a broad head and large mouth.While the goosefish finds its home waters along the eastern coast of the U.S., the tasseled wobbegong lives in the waters of northern Australia and is a member of the carpet shark family, a predatory species named for its seafloor-dwelling habits.