Datasets:

pszemraj

/

multi_fc

like 1

pomt-11700

Says Texas Department of Public Safety numbers show that 1.6 percent of crime is committed by unauthorized immigrants.

half-true

/texas/statements/2017/dec/21/lupe-valdez/lupe-valdez-says-unauthorized-immigrants-account-1/

Long before Democrat Lupe Valdez declared her candidacy for governor, she differed with Republican incumbent Greg Abbott over the change in law put in place by Texas lawmakers this year to bar local communities from harboring immigrants living in the country illegally. The state’s sanctuary cities bar, which as of December 2017 remained partially blocked by a federal judge’s ruling under state appeal, empowers local police officers to inquire into a person’s immigration status during routine encounters such as traffic stops. The law also requires local law enforcement to cooperate with federal immigration agents and to go along with detention requests placed on inmates suspected of illegal immigration. Senate Bill 4 imposes stiff fines and criminal charges on government officials who choose to ignore it. In July 2017, according to a Dallas Morning News story, Abbott defended the law before the Sheriff’s Association of Texas, saying it "would remove from the streets dangerous criminals, not detain hardworking families and innocent children. I appreciate the strong support the law has received from so many sheriffs across Texas," Abbott said. That story also quoted Valdez, then Dallas County’s fourth-term sheriff, calling the law a political tool to attack vulnerable Texans. "Throughout history, we've had a vulnerable group to pick on," Valdez said. "Now it seems to be Hispanics," Valdez said. Valdez further said that Texas Department of Public Safety numbers show that only 1.6 percent of crime is committed by unauthorized immigrants, according to the story. National research suggests that residents living in the U.S. without legal permission don’t account for a lot of crime. But we fell short of eliciting a full unpacking from Valdez about how she reached the 1.6 percent statistic nor did we independently find a way to confidently settle on a specific percentage. Seeking Valdez's factual backup After Valdez resigned as sheriff to launch her bid for governor, we asked how she reached the 1.6 percent figure. By email, a campaign aide, Kiefer Odell, pointed us to Valdez’s Dec. 10, 2015 testimony before the Texas House Committee on State Affairs. At Odell’s nudge, we watched the Texas Legislative Council’s video of the hearing, which opened with the panel chairman, Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, saying that according to the DPS, "there are over 176,000 criminal immigrants that have been booked into our local Texas jails between 2011 and 2015" on almost 500,000 criminal charges, Cook said, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping, burglary, theft and robbery "and," Cook said, "these are only those that are reported crimes. "Clearly this presents a public safety crisis in our state," Cook said before going on to say that legislators would focus in advance of the 2017 session on legislation to restrict sanctuary cities. Valdez challenged the need for such legislation while stressing that the Dallas County sheriff’s office was complying with individual federal requests to detain individuals suspected of living in the country without permission. "Jails should be for people we’re afraid of," Valdez testified, "not for people we’re upset with." She also said: "The undocumenteds are no more likely to commit crimes than our native-born citizens." A legislator asked Valdez to speak to her foundation for the latter statement. The sheriff replied: "Well, as you heard before, the director said 170,000 crimes were committed by undocumenteds in four years. That’s out of 11 million 100,000 and something. And when you bring that right down, it came out to 1.76 percent, and we rounded off to 1.8 percent of the crimes committed in Texas during the same time period. "So under 2 percent of the crimes were committed, that we have record of, for all, either documented or undocumented, it was 2 percent of the actual crimes," Valdez said. We asked Odell to share the source and significance of the 11.1 million figure offered by Valdez toward reaching her conclusion that less than 2 percent of Texas crimes from 2011-15 could be attributed to unauthorized residents. We didn’t hear back on that. DPS spokesman points to a web page We also queried the DPS about Valdez’s "1.6 percent" claim; spokesman Tom Vinger offered no comment though he pointed by email to an undated DPS web page, "Texas Criminal Alien Arrest Data," lacking in information that in itself would confirm or invalidate Valdez’s claim. As of December 2017, the page said that more than 238,000 "criminal aliens" had been booked into Texas county jails from June 2011 through November 2017 and those booked individuals had, in their respective lives, accumulated 632,000 criminal charges. There was no data on the DPS web page about other arrested or convicted residents and no estimate of the share of arrests accumulated by unauthorized U.S. residents. A cautionary note about the DPS presentation: A "criminal alien," the Government Accountability Office notes, is a non-citizen convicted of a crime who may be lawfully or unlawfully living in the country. This definition makes it likely that not everyone described in the DPS summary was living in the U.S. illegally, which makes it hard to decipher what to make of the counts on the page. Rough calculations Hoping for other insights into the share of people living here illegally who commit crimes, we reached out to other criminal justice experts. By email, Austin-based Tony Fabelo, a researcher for the Council of State Governments Justice Center, offered a back-of-the-envelope approach to gauging Valdez’s claim using the posted DPS numbers. Fabelo wrote that annualizing DPS’s tally of more than 238,000 "criminal aliens" booked into jails over six-plus years, as posted as of December 2017, suggests a rate of 39,000 such bookings a year. "Not all arrests lead to a jail booking, but let us assume they do," Fabelo said. That in mind, he went on, the DPS for 2016 separately reported more than 758,000 adult arrests for criminal offenses in the state. So, Fabelo said, bookings of unauthorized residents may have accounted for about 5 percent of all such adult arrests--a figure exceeding Valdez’s declared percentage (though this rough figure, we noticed, also couldn’t account for the fact that not all "criminal aliens" are living in the country without legal permission). Next, we applied the same methodology to a figure that Valdez noted in her 2015 testimony. In the five years from 2011 through 2015, annual DPS crime reports indicate there were 4,389,998 adults arrested in Texas for criminal offenses--making it possible to say, we calculated, that the 170,000 Cook-described arrests of "criminal immigrants" amounted to about 4 percent of all the adult arrests in the state. Now if Cook was referring only to arrests from 2011 to 2015--his comment at the hearing was unclear on the timeframe--then we calculated that the 170,000 "criminal immigrants" may have accounted for 4.7 percent of 3,613,691 total adult arrests from 2011 through 2014. But absent expert analysis, we wouldn't brandish these conclusions as facts. National research Precise percentages aside, PolitiFact researchers have found that unauthorized residents don’t account for more crime than other residents. In August 2017, most recently, PolitiFact California followed on a 2016 PolitiFact fact-check and found Mostly True a claim that undocumented immigrants commit less crime than native Americans. That fact-check noted a 2015 National Academy of Sciences study that cited another outfit’s report including, we noticed, a 1.6 percent reference, though the figure in this instance reflected on male immigrants only. Let’s revisit it. The July 2015 report from the American Immigration Council, a pro-immigrant nonprofit, generally states that U.S. Census Bureau data support the conclusion that immigrants are less likely than native-born Americans to be behind bars, though the report doesn’t present figures limited to unauthorized residents. "According to an original analysis of data from the 2010 American Community Survey (ACS) conducted by the authors of this report, roughly 1.6 percent of immigrant males age 18-39 are incarcerated, compared to 3.3 percent of the native-born," the report says. "This disparity in incarceration rates has existed for decades, as evidenced by data from the 1980, 1990, and 2000 decennial censuses. In each of those years, the incarceration rates of the native-born were anywhere from two to five times higher than that of immigrants." The report also delves into crime in Texas cities: "The most thoroughly studied aspect of this phenomenon has been the drop in rates of violent crime since the early 1990s in cities that have long been ‘gateways’ for immigrants entering the United States, such as Miami, Chicago, El Paso, San Antonio, and San Diego. However, the inverse relationship between immigration and crime is also apparent in ‘new’ immigrant gateways, such as Austin, where rates of both violent crime and serious property crime have declined despite high levels of new immigration. Declining rates of property crime have also been documented in metropolitan areas across the country. Some scholars suggest that new immigrants may revitalize dilapidated urban areas, ultimately reducing violent crime rates." Walter A. Ewing, a senior researcher for the council, told PolitiFact in 2016 that immigrants come to the U.S. to build better lives for themselves and their children. "They are very motivated to not blow that opportunity by getting in trouble with the police," Ewing said. "This is especially so for unauthorized immigrants, who can be deported at any time for unlawful presence." We asked Ewing to speak to Valdez’s 1.6 percent claim. By email, Ewing said he didn’t know "of any source of information that would allow that precise of an estimate of the share of crime attributable to undocumented immigrants. If there is a solid source for those numbers, I’d love to know what it is," Ewing wrote. The council’s conclusion was echoed in a 2017 report from the libertarian Cato Institute stating, in part, that U.S. "immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than natives relative to their shares of the population. Even illegal immigrants are less likely to be incarcerated than native-born Americans," Cato said. To be specific, the report said that in 2014, per Cato’s analysis rooted in the ACS, illegal immigrants aged 18 to 54 were 44 percent less likely to be incarcerated than natives in the age group. That report also took note of a February 2016 Texas Tribune news story that drew on information obtained from the Texas Department of Criminal Justice to estimate that 4.6 percent of Texas inmates were illegal immigrants upon whom federal authorities had placed detainer requests. At about that time, the story said, an estimated 1.7 million illegal immigrants comprised 6.3 percent of the state’s population. We also asked Cato analyst Alex Nowrasteh to review Valdez’s claim. By phone, Nowrasteh said it looked to him like some figures may have gotten confused. The 11.1 million number Valdez offered at the House committee hearing, Nowrasteh said, might trace to a widely-cited estimate of 11 million illegal immigrants living in the U.S. in 2015, which was down from an estimated 11.3 million in 2009. Generally, Nowrasteh said, "the government has been stingy about releasing facts about immigrants and crime. There’s no excuse for not releasing all the facts and data. It should be easy for the public to look up." Our ruling Valdez said DPS numbers show that 1.6 percent of crime is committed by unauthorized immigrants. We didn’t find DPS figures or an understandable methodology to support a specific "1.6 percent" conclusion--nor did we work up what we’d consider a solid alternate estimate. Relevant data seems to be unavailable. Still, national research supports Valdez's point that people living in the U.S. illegally account for little crime. On balance, we rate this claim Half True. HALF TRUE – The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details or takes things out of context. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com

Lupe Valdez

2017-12-21T19:18:04

2017-07-31

['None']

tron-02950

Protest Donald Trump’s Inauguration By the Changing Channel

mostly fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/protest-donald-trumps-inauguration-changing-channel-mostly-fiction/

politics

['2016 election', 'donald trump', 'facebook']

Protest Donald Trump’s Inauguration By the Changing Channel

Jan 18, 2017

['None']

goop-02245

Jennifer Lopez, Alex Rodriguez Marrying In The Spring?

3

https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-lopez-marrying-alex-rodriguez-spring-wedding/

Shari Weiss

Jennifer Lopez, Alex Rodriguez Marrying In The Spring?

9:42 am, November 6, 2017

['Jennifer_Lopez', 'Alex_Rodriguez']

pose-00716

Will "work with our Congressional delegation to attract more funds federally for investing in different transit options that best fit a community and working with business creatively to provide workers more flexibility to reduce their driving, work from home or adopt flex time to address congestion problems and enhance our quality of life.

stalled

https://www.politifact.com/oregon/promises/kitz-o-meter/promise/746/attract-more-federal-transit-funds/

kitz-o-meter

John Kitzhaber

Attract more federal transit funds

2011-01-04T21:58:42

['United_States_Congress']

tron-01488

Members of Congress Refuse to Stand for Pledge of Allegiance

fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/members-congress-sit-pledge-of-allegiance/

government

['congress', 'dnc', 'patriotism']

Members of Congress Refuse to Stand for Pledge of Allegiance

May 9, 2017

['None']

pomt-13218

Zephyr Teachout says she is against Super PACs despite taking money from Super PAC donors

true

/new-york/statements/2016/oct/20/national-republican-congressional-committee/some-teachouts-donors-also-gave-super-pacs/

Zephyr Teachout has been a vocal opponent of super PACs. For a short time last year the Democrat even headed a super PAC whose goal was to end all super PACs. But the National Republican Congressional Committee said that hasn’t stopped her from accepting contributions from those who gave to Super PACs. "Zephyr Teachout says she is against Super PACs despite taking money from Super PAC donors," the NRCC wrote in a blog post. Getting big money out of politics has been a central theme of her campaign to represent the 19th Congressional District, located in New York State’s Hudson Valley and Catskills regions, like it was when she ran for governor in 2014. Super PACs are able to accept and spend unlimited amounts of money in elections. Is the National Republican Congressional Committee right? Has her campaign accepted money from super PAC donors? Teachout’s donors The National Republican Congressional Committee names 16 people it says donated to Teachout’s campaign and to super PACs. We found the donors in Teachout’s campaign finance filings. Altogether, the 16 donors have given $67,300 to Teachout. That’s about 2 percent of the $3.2 million she has raised, according to her latest filing. The 16 Teachout contributors who gave money to super PACs contributed at least $61 million to super PACs. Two donated $10,000 or less to super PACs. In 2016, seven of the donors gave to super PACs. The other nine did not. Among the 16 donors are billionaire George Soros and members of his family. Super PAC support Teachout has received backing from one super PAC: National Nurses United. It reported spending almost $47,000 in digital ad buys for the Democrat this year. Teachout's campaign says Faso has received more help from super PACs. New York Wins reported spending close to $1 million in ads and mailers against his primary opponent. The group has not reported spending anything against Teachout. Another super PAC, Congressional Leadership Fund, spent more than $2.7 million against Teachout in mail and media placement since the June primary. "You know I’m running against John Faso, but we’re really running against super PACs," Teachout said at a campaign event in August. Our ruling In a series of blog posts, the National Republican Congressional Committee said "Zephyr Teachout says she is against Super PACs despite taking money from Super PAC donors." We cross-checked 16 donors to Teachout’s campaign with their donations to super PACs. We found all of them also donated to super PACs. We rate this claim as True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/d71ac40c-ac62-4894-acb4-74f2affc8a90

National Republican Congressional Committee

2016-10-20T06:00:00

2016-09-21

['None']

pomt-12980

It is more difficult to obtain a Costco membership than it is to get a NYC Municipal ID

pants on fire!

/new-york/statements/2016/dec/21/ron-castorina-jr/getting-costco-membership-not-easier-getting-nyc-m/

It takes a membership card to shop at a Costco warehouse store. There are 87.3 million Costco cardholders around the world - some of whom shop at the company’s New York City locations. Municipal identification cards are also common in the wallets of New York City residents. The New York City identification card gives them access to city programs and services and helps when it comes to renting an apartment, opening a bank account or complying with a police officer who asks for identification. So which card is harder to get? State Assemblyman Ron Castorina Jr., R-Staten Island, called the vetting process for a New York City ID card weak with "little to no integrity." "It is more difficult to obtain a Costco membership than it is to get a NYC Municipal ID," Castorina said in a press release. Castorina is one of two state lawmakers who filed a lawsuit to preserve supporting documents submitted to get New York City IDs. When New York City lawmakers created the municipal ID program last year, the statute allowed the city to destroy documents that could identify applicants. The aim was to protect undocumented immigrants from federal immigration authorities. Until now, the city has stored the information. But city officials say starting next year, ahead of the inauguration of President-elect Donald J. Trump, they will no longer hold on to documents submitted by applicants. Castorina and Assemblywoman Nicole Malliotakis, also a Republican from Staten Island, want the city to hold onto the documents because they may help law enforcement agencies in any investigations. So is Castorina right? Is it easier to get a Costco membership? To find out, we went through the application process. Signing up for Costco You can apply for membership online or in any of the company’s 723 warehouse stores around the world. We chose to apply online. The application requires your name, address, date of birth, email address and phone number. Members can share their membership with others in their households, but have to provide their name, dates of birth, and contact information as well. The online form takes less than five minutes to complete. After completing the form, applicants enter their credit card information to purchase the membership online. Membership options range from $55 to $110. Members pay to renew the membership each year. Once the payment is accepted, Costco sends an email with a membership number. This can take from 10 minutes to 24 hours, a company customer service representative said. After receiving the email, the customer copies the membership number down and brings it along on the first visit to the Costco store. Customers must bring a photo ID on their initial visit. Otherwise, the store will not hand over the membership card. Customers who opt for the business membership also have to bring either a business license or three pieces of business ID, which can include anything from a business card to an electric bill. Customers do not have to provide a proof of residency. The store’s customer service line says customers can complete the entire process in less than one day. Signing up for a New York City ID For a New York City ID, residents can either print out an application or fill one out at an enrollment center. Every borough has at least one center, and some have more. The one-page application asks for the resident’s name, address, date of birth, gender, eye color, height, and contact information. There’s also an option to register as an organ donor, select a preferred language, and designate an emergency contact. The form takes less than 10 minutes to complete. Applicants then must schedule an appointment at one of the enrollment centers. Most centers are not open every day, and at least one has appointments booked through the end of January according to the scheduling website. Residents can also call the city’s government 311 helpline to schedule an appointment. Residents have to submit up to four identifying documents with their application. One of the documents has to have a photo, one has to show the applicant’s date of birth, and one has to show the applicant lives in New York City. A representative from the city’s 311 helpline said a few forms of ID, like one from the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, are enough to prove residency and identity. Homeless people or survivors of domestic violence who do not have a permanent address have to bring a letter from either the shelter where they are staying or from a city agency, nonprofit organization, religious institution, hospital, or health clinic. If the application is approved at the center, the staff will take the resident’s photo for the ID. If they have an address, they will get it in the mail less than two weeks later. If they don’t have an address, the ID will be sent to the enrollment center where they applied. Our ruling Castorina, the assemblyman from Staten Island, claimed in a press release that "it is more difficult to obtain a Costco membership than it is to get a NYC Municipal ID." Getting a membership at Costco requires an application and a photo ID on your first visit to the store. A municipal ID in New York City requires more documentation and takes longer to process. The only obstacle to getting a Costco membership that might make it more difficult for some people is the cost. The New York City ID card is free. A Costco membership starts at $55 annually. We rate his claim as Pants on Fire. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/d0c8de75-b28b-4622-a26c-daf08dbf1085

Ron Castorina, Jr.

2016-12-21T00:00:00

2016-11-28

['None']

farg-00238

We ended up getting substantially more [of the black vote] than other [Republican] candidates who had run in the past years.

misleading

https://www.factcheck.org/2017/02/groundhog-day/

the-factcheck-wire

Donald Trump

D'Angelo Gore

['campaign 2016']

Groundhog Day

February 2, 2017

[' Remarks on African American History Month – Wednesday, February 1, 2017 ']

['Republican_Party_(United_States)']

snes-01454

A tradition of celebrating Veterans Day with ravioli dinners was initiated by President Woodrow Wilson in 1919.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/remembrance-of-things-pasta/

Holidays

David Mikkelson

Is Ravioli a Traditional Veterans Day Meal?

7 November 2012

['Woodrow_Wilson', 'Veterans_Day']

pomt-03644

The Internal Revenue code has ballooned to a 5,600-page, 4 million-word complicated mess that is seven times as long as the Bible with none of the good news.

mostly true

/new-jersey/statements/2013/may/02/leonard-lance/leonard-lance-claims-federal-tax-code-contains-4-m/

The U.S. Internal Revenue code may make War and Peace read like a novella. That’s how onerous and confounding the nation’s tax code is, according to Rep. Leonard Lance (R-7th), who issued a news release April 15 calling for "meaningful tax reform" and blasting the complexity of the tax code. "The Internal Revenue code has ballooned to a 5,600-page, 4 million-word complicated mess that is seven times as long as the Bible with none of the good news," Lance said in the news release. But not all the news is bad for Lance. Let’s first review the size of the tax code and then compare that with the size of the Bible. A 2010 report by the Internal Revenue Service’s Taxpayer’s Advocate Office found that the tax code contained 3.8 million words. That calculation was made by downloading a zipped file of the code, unzipping it and running it through Microsoft Word’s word-count feature, according to a footnote in the report. A 2012 version of the report puts the number of words in the code at ‘about 4 million.’ We also reached out to CCH, the Riverwoods, Ill.-based publisher of the two-volume 2013 Winter version of the tax code and was told the best estimate of word length was 4 million. CCH is a Wolters Kluwer business. So Lance’s claim about the number of words is generally accurate. Next, let’s look at number of pages. Lance said 5,600, based on the same figure cited by articles in the Washington Post, the Harvard Business Review and other publications, according to Todd Mitchell, Lance’s chief of staff. Mark Luscombe, a principal federal tax analyst for CCH, said the publisher’s version of the tax code is 5,036 pages. "Private publishers do a print version of the Internal Revenue code, but then you’re looking at one private publisher’s version of the code," he said. "We do it in two volumes and we keep condensing it." The key point here? Letter size, font and spacing matter when counting pages in the tax code and even in the Bible. Dennis Olson, the Charles T. Haley professor of Old Testament Theology at the Princeton Theological Seminary said an approximation of 800,000 words for the Old and New testaments combined is fair. "The King James Version would be 823,156 while the more recent New Revised Standard Version would be 774,746 words," Olson said in an e-mail. Hellen Mardaga, an assistant professor of New Testament at Catholic University in Washington, said there’s no standard way to measure the size of the Bible, given its numerous translations and texts but said she, too, was aware of estimates that put the Bible at 800,000 words. Mardaga also noted that dividing 4 million – the number of words in the tax code – by 800,000 - would mean the tax code is five times longer than the Bible -- not Lance’s seven. We looked at versions of the King James and New American Standard versions of the Bible on Amazon.com, an online retailer of books and other merchandise. The four Bibles we looked at ranged in size from 512 pages to 1,112. Accordingly, Mitchell said he has seen numerous references comparing the size of the tax code with the Bible, ranging from 4 times as long to 10 times as long. Seven, he said, is in the middle. "It all depends on what version (of the Bible) you have in front of you," he said. "I’m not sure there’s a right or wrong answer to the question." Our ruling Lance said, "The Internal Revenue code has ballooned to a 5,600-page, 4 million-word complicated mess that is seven times as long as the Bible with none of the good news." It’s generally accepted that the code is about 4 million words in length, according to previous published reports and the publisher of the 2013 winter version of the tax code. Lance also based his figure of 5,600 pages on previous reports from publications such as the Harvard Business Review. Opinions also differ on the code’s length when compared with the Bible, given the many versions, translations and texts of it. And while the tax code isn’t seven times as long as the Bible, even given a standard word count for the good book, we get Lance’s overall point: the tax code is long and complex. We rate his claim Mostly True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.

Leonard Lance

2013-05-02T07:30:00

2013-04-15

['Bible']

vees-00403

SONA 2016 promise tracker

none

http://verafiles.org/articles/2016-sona-promise-tracker

Duterte,SONA promise tracker

SONA 2016 promise tracker

July 21, 2017

['None']

pomt-07869

Twelve judges have thrown out legal challenges to the health care law because they rejected "the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional."

false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/feb/08/barack-obama/president-obama-says-12-judges-have-rejected-notio/

Ever since a federal judge in Florida ruled the health care law unconstitutional, the White House has portrayed the opinion as an outlier made by an activist judge. Many other judges have come to a different conclusion, the argument goes. This was the tack President Barack Obama took in a pre-Super Bowl interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, who asked about the recent Florida ruling. "Well, I think the judge in Florida was wrong," Obama said. "Keep in mind that we've had 12 judges said -- that just threw this case out -- the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional." Obama's point was clear: The Florida case got the headlines, but courts are still overwhelmingly ruling with Obama on the key question of constitutionality. We asked the White House for some backup on the claim about the 12 dismissed cases, and they provided a list that we've appended to the bottom of this article. The White House is correct they were dismissed, but they were dismissed for procedural reasons, often because the judges concluded the plaintiffs either lacked proper standing or jurisdiction to bring the lawsuit. The judges did not opine on the merits of these cases, such as whether the law is constitutional. They dismissed the cases for a variety of reasons: in some, the argument was that the plaintiff's lacked standing because the individual mandate portion of the law (which requires people to have health insurance) had not yet kicked in. It goes into effect in 2014. In other cases, the judges said the plaintiffs lacked standing because they did not establish that they would be injured by the law. Besides the judges who dismissed 12 cases on procedural grounds, four judges have ruled on the merits of various cases challenging the health care law. Two ruled in favor of the administration and two against: Thomas Moore Law Center vs. Barack Hussein Obama On Oct. 7, 2010, U.S. District Judge George Steeh, a Bill Clinton appointee to the Eastern District of Michigan, ruled that Congress has the right to impose the individual mandate portion of the health care law under the Commerce Clause of the constitution. "The health care market is unlike other markets," Steeh wrote. "No one can guarantee his or her health, or ensure that he or she will never participate in the health care market ... "In this case, the minimum coverage provision of the Health Care Reform Act contains two provisions aimed at the same goal," Steeh wrote. "Congress intended to increase the number of insureds and decrease the cost of health insurance by requiring individuals to maintain minimum essential coverage or face a penalty for failing to do so. Because the 'penalty' is incidental to these purposes, plaintiffs' challenge to the constitutionality of the penalty as an improperly apportioned direct tax is without merit." Score one for the constitutionality of the health care law. Liberty University vs. Timothy Geithner In an opinion handed down on Nov. 30, 2010, in the Western District of Virginia, U.S. District Judge Norman Moon, a Clinton appointee, also ruled the law constitutional under the Commerce Clause, the constitutional principle that allows the federal government to regulate commerce. "I hold that there is a rational basis for Congress to conclude that individuals' decisions about how and when to pay for health care are activities that in the aggregate substantially affect the interstate health care market," Moon wrote. "Nearly everyone will require health care services at some point in their lifetimes, and it is not always possible to predict when one will be afflicted by illness or injury and require care.… "Far from 'inactivity,' by choosing to forgo insurance, Plaintiffs are making an economic decision to try to pay for health care services later, out of pocket, rather than now, through the purchase of insurance. As Congress found, the total incidence of these economic decisions has a substantial impact on the national market for health care by collectively shifting billions of dollars on to other market participants and driving up the prices of insurance policies." So the first two decisions on the constitutional merits went Obama's way. But the next two did not. Commonwealth of Virgina vs. Kathleen Sebelius In a ruling filed on Dec. 13, 2010, U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson, a President George W. Bush appointee, wrote that "despite laudable intentions of Congress in enacting a comprehensive transformative health care regime, the legislative process must still operate within constitutional bounds." "Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," Hudson wrote. "In doing so, the enactment of the Minimum Essential Coverage provision exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I." Hudson struck down the individual mandate, but upheld the rest of the law. State of Florida vs. United States Department of Health and Human Services This ruling made the biggest headlines. In a case brought by 26 states challenging the health care law, Senior U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson of Pensacola, Fla., a Ronald Reagan appointee, issued a sweeping ruling on Jan. 31., 2011, that the individual mandate is unconstitutional and so entwined with the rest of the law that the entire thing should be thrown out. "In the final analysis, this Act has been analogized to a finely crafted watch, and that seems to fit. It has approximately 450 separate pieces, but one essential piece (the individual mandate) is defective and must be removed," Vinson wrote. "It cannot function as originally designed. There are simply too many moving parts in the Act and too many provisions dependent (directly and indirectly) on the individual mandate and other health insurance provisions -- which, as noted, were the chief engines that drove the entire legislative effort -- for me to try and dissect out the proper from the improper, and the able-to-stand-alone from the unable-to-stand-alone. Such a quasi-legislative undertaking would be particularly inappropriate in light of the fact that any statute that might conceivably be left over after this analysis is complete would plainly not serve Congress' main purpose and primary objective in passing the Act. The statute is, after all, called "The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act," not "The Abstinence Education and Bone Marrow Density Testing Act." The Act, like a defectively designed watch, needs to be redesigned and reconstructed by the watchmaker." There are other cases pending, as well as appeals on nearly all of the cases listed above. But here's the score so far: 12 cases dismissed for procedural reasons 2 cases in favor of the Obama administration on the merits (both judges had been appointed by Democrats) 2 cases against the Obama administration on the merits (both judges had been appointed by Republicans) All sides agree that the issue will ultimately be decided by the Supreme Court. Back to Obama's statement, "Keep in mind that we've had 12 judges said -- that just threw this case out -- the notion that the health care law was unconstitutional." The president's statement "very clearly implies the judges have said it's not unconstitutional," said legal commentator Stuart Taylor Jr. "This is highly misleading White House spin. A ruling on standing is never a ruling on whether the underlying law is constitutional or not." Avram Goldstein, a spokesman for Health Care for America Now, said the point is that despite all the media attention given to the Florida court decision, "This one case is not the be-all and end-all." The judges in the 12 cases listed by the White House may not have weighed in on the constitutionality issue, Golstein said, "but if a judge throws it out for procedural reasons, you lost." Kate Bedingfield, a spokeswoman for the White House, made a similar argument. "Twelve lawsuits challenging the law's constitutionality have been dismissed," Bedingfield said. "That’s a fact, and that is the point the president was making." We disagree. Obama said the 12 judges dismissed the cases because they disagreed with the claim that the health care law was unconstitutional. They did not. They dismissed the cases because of procedural grounds. We find his claim False. Appendix: 12 Cases Cited by the White House (PolitiFact added links to the cases and rulings that we could find online) Archer v. U.S. Senate, dismissed April 12, 2010 Baldwin v. Sebelius, dismissed Aug. 27, 2010 Burlsworth v. Holder, dismissed on Sept. 8, 29/8 Coalition for Parity Inc. v. Sebelius, dismissed on June 21, 2010 Fountain Hills Tea Party Patriots v. Sebelius, dismissed June 2, 2010 Mackenzie v. Shaheen (NH) - dismissed May 26, 2010 New Jersey Physicians v. Obama, dismissed Dec. 8, 2010 Schreeve v. Obama, dismissed Nov. 4. 2010 Sollars v. Reid, dismissed April 2, 2010 Taitz v. Obama, dismissed April 14, 2010 U.S. Citizens Association v. OMB, dismissed 8/2 Bryant v. Holder, dismissed Feb. 3, 2011

Barack Obama

2011-02-08T12:02:33

2011-02-06

['None']

bove-00171

It’s Not Mass Panic, It’s Crowd Science: How To Escape A Stampede

none

https://www.boomlive.in/its-not-mass-panic-its-crowd-science-how-to-escape-a-stampede/

It’s Not Mass Panic, It’s Crowd Science: How To Escape A Stampede

Sep 30 2017 9:00 am

['None']

pomt-03226

According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, under Obamacare, 7 million people will lose their employer-sponsored insurance.

mostly false

/texas/statements/2013/aug/19/ted-cruz/cruz-claim-about-fewer-americans-employer-backed-h/

Texas U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, who has championed Republican efforts to stop the Obamacare law from rolling out, says some workers will lose employer-supported health plans under the law. In an Aug. 12, 2013, commentary, Cruz initially noted that President Barack Obama, who signed the Affordable Care Act known as Obamacare into law in 2010, said that under the law, Americans who like their health coverage could keep it. But that’s not so, Cruz said, adding: "According to a recent Congressional Budget Office report, under Obamacare, 7 million people will lose their employer-sponsored insurance." By email, Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said he was drawing on the non-partisan office’s latest 10-year budget outlook forecast. The CBO's report, issued Feb. 5, 2013, does not say how many workers are poised to lose employer-backed coverage. But a multi-tiered chart pointed out by Frazier indicates that as soon as 2017, the number of people who have employer-backed plans will be down seven million from the 162 million Americans who would have such coverage that year if Obamacare were not law. Similarly, three million fewer individuals will be enrolled in group health plans, including Medicare, that year than if Obamacare were not law, the chart indicates. More broadly, the chart also shows that fewer workers will have employer-supported plans in every year from 2014 through 2023 than if there had been no Obamacare law. Then again, the chart shows more workers having employer-backed plans in all but one year of the decade than the 154 million listed as having such coverage in 2013. Some 155 million people will have such plans through 2015, according to the chart, with 154 million people having one in 2016. A greater total of workers will have such coverage through 2019, according to the chart, when 167 million people will be so enrolled; the workers in such plans is predicted to decrease to 158 million in 2020 before edging to 160 million in 2022 and 2023. More broadly, the chart signals a surge in health coverage. By 2017, according to the chart, there will be 27 million fewer uninsured citizens than if the law had not changed. The same year, 11 million more people will be enrolled in Medicaid or state Children’s Health Insurance Plans than if Obamacare were not law, the chart says, and 26 million more people will have health plans purchased through insurance exchanges, lately called marketplaces. Under the law, individuals seeking coverage will be able to shop via online exchanges, or marketplaces, which are scheduled to debut in October 2013 before the law requires most citizens to have health coverage starting in 2014. By email, Frazier said the upshot remains that seven million Americans "will drop their current coverage" with the point "being that the people are losing their options and being thrown into exchanges that will not offer the same plans they have now." On Feb. 8, 2013, CNN posted a news story noting that the prediction that seven million people would lose or drop their employment-based coverage amounted to an increase from four million as estimated by the office in August 2012. The story said, though, that workers "who lose that coverage won't all be joining the ranks of the uninsured or the unemployed... Many are expected to shift into the health insurance exchanges. The number of people participating in those exchanges is projected to grow from seven million in 2014 -- the first year they'll be available -- to 24 million in 2016," CNN said, recapping figures in the CBO chart. The CBO report provides a little elaboration, stating that the increase to seven million from four million was largely due to a big decision made after its previous forecast: Congress and President Barack Obama extended, rather than letting expire, most tax cuts passed into law under President George W. Bush. A footnote to the report’s chart states the expected number of people with employment-based plans reflects the "net result of increases in and losses of offers of health insurance from employers and changes in enrollment by workers and their families." It’s complicated: "For example," the footnote continues, "in 2019, an estimated 12 million people who would have had an offer of employment-based coverage under prior law will lose their offer under current law, and another 3 million people will have an offer of employment-based coverage but will enroll in health insurance from another source instead. These flows out of employment-based coverage will be partially offset by an estimated 7 million people who will newly enroll in employment-based coverage under the Affordable Care Act." The report has a little more explanation. Lower income tax rates, it says, reduce the "tax benefits associated with health insurance provided by employers." Also, the report says, the greater predicted movement away from employment-based coverage reflects revised income projections plus higher projections of how many workers would have employer-based plans if Obamacare was not law. CNN’s story quoted James Klein, president of the American Benefits Council, a trade association for large employers, as saying that since employer-provided health insurance is not taxable, the CBO's theory is that the benefits aren't as valuable when tax rates are lower. So some workers -- particularly lower-income individuals -- may find it more desirable to forgo their employer's coverage, CNN said, and seek insurance in the exchanges, where they also may be eligible for a government subsidy. At the same time, CNN said, employers with large, low-wage workforces may find it financially advantageous to withdraw health coverage, even if they have to pay penalties set up by the law. Frazier did not comment on the report's other elements. She emailed: "The point is that President Obama promised Americans they could keep their plans under Obamacare. Millions won't be able to. This isn't an argument over who gets care, it's over who gets to keep their current plan." Our ruling Cruz said that according to the CBO, "under Obamacare, 7 million people will lose their employer-sponsored insurance." Not exactly. This claim is a refraction of the budget office’s forecast, which says that in four years--2017 and 2021 through 2023--seven million fewer workers will have employer-based plans than if Obamacare were not law. In any year, it makes sense to expect some workers to lose employer-backed coverage. Things change. But the office’s 10-year forecast does not estimate how many workers will "lose" employer-sponsored plans. Conversely, it indicates that compared to 2013, more workers will have employer plans in all but one year of the decade. This claim skews a single cherry-picked number from a multi-variable presentation. While there is an element of truth--fewer workers will have employer-supported plans than if Obamacare had not passed into law--the CBO report also indicates many Americans will obtain coverage from other sources. We rate the statement as Mostly False.

Ted Cruz

2013-08-19T12:00:00

2013-08-12

['Patient_Protection_and_Affordable_Care_Act']

pose-00043

Increase the amount of unpaid wages and benefits workers can claim in bankruptcy court against their employer.

promise broken

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/obameter/promise/46/allow-workers-to-claim-more-in-unpaid-wages-and-be/

obameter

Barack Obama

Allow workers to claim more in unpaid wages and benefits in bankruptcy court

2010-01-07T13:26:46

['None']

pomt-08115

The state has "less employees this year than we did last year."

mostly true

/florida/statements/2010/dec/10/bill-montford/democrat-senator-says-state-already-cutting-jobs-c/

On the campaign trail, Gov.-elect Rick Scott promised to cut the state workforce by 5 percent. But now some Democrats are using a new state study to say the cuts aren't needed. The Department of Management Services released its annual state workforce report on Dec. 8, 2010. The report profiles the number of state employees and their salaries, and it offers comparisons to state government workers nationwide. That comparison is quite favorable, said state Sen. Bill Montford, D-Tallahassee. "We're getting a good deal from our state workers," Montford said after digesting the results of the report. "Facing the financial crisis that we are, I understand why anyone would say we have to cut back across the board, but we have less employees this year than we did last year," Montford told the Tallahassee Democrat. "We're already reducing the size of government." As part of Scott's "7-7-7" plan to create about 700,000 private sector jobs in seven years, Scott has said he wants to trim 5 percent of the state workforce. Scott says that the workforce reduction would save almost $300 million, and that history shows Florida's economy grows better when government spending is lowered. But Montford, like Democratic gubernatorial nominee Alex Sink, argues that the state government already is pretty lean. As proof, he says the state workforce is shrinking. That's the statement we're checking here. Highlights from the report Florida in 2009 had the lowest ratio among the 50 states of full- and part-time state employees to overall population, and the second lowest ratio of full-time equivalent employees to population (Illinois ranked ahead of Florida), according to DMS. Florida also had the lowest payroll expenditures per resident -- $38 -- in the country, the DMS found, using public payroll expenditures submitted to the United States Census Bureau. The national average was $72 per resident. A word of caution about both figures -- Florida, because of its large population, has a comparative advantage using these types of calculation when compared to states with smaller populations. Those states still have to provide most or all of the public services that Florida does, but just for fewer people. Delaware and North Dakota, for instance, both have nearly three times as many state employees per resident when compared with Florida, and spend three times more on payroll per resident. A couple of other interesting figures -- women occupy more than 56 percent of traditional state government jobs, but less than 40 percent of senior management positions, and women across the board make less on average than their male colleagues. Male employees in the state personnel system earn $45,715 on average while women earn $40,496. State employee count Montford, in his comments, focuses on the state employee count. There are a couple of different ways the state takes a head count. Most figures refer to employees in the state personnel system -- those are the traditional government workers from state departments and agencies. But university employees -- professors and researchers and others -- are technically state workers, too. So are all the state courts and judicial system. On top of that, the state measures the government workforce by both budgeted positions, and the actual number of employees. Luckily, regardless of how you classify the number of state employees, the results are generally the same. But not necessarily a ringing endorsement of Montford's point. The total budgeted state workforce as of June 30, 2010, stood at 167,797 -- 857 employees less than in 2009, and 5,689 employees less than in 2008. But the state in 2010 had 529 more employees than it did on Dec. 31, 2006, according to DMS. If you look only at the state personnel system employees -- those that work directly for the government in an agency or department -- the gaps shrink ever more. The state system budgeted for a total of 109,020 employees in 2010, 456 employees less than its 2009 total (a 0.4 percent decrease) and 154 more than at the end of 2006 (a 0.1 percent increase). So in budgeted head counts, the state cut back ever so slightly from 2009 to 2010, but still has a bigger workforce than it did four years ago. The actual employee figures track the same way. State personnel system employees dropped from 105,174 in 2009 to 105,031 this year (difference of 143 people, or a 0.1 percent decline). But the number of employees increased 0.6 percent overall from 2006 to 2010. We tried to contact Montford's office to see which figure specifically he was citing, but we did not hear back. Conclusion In arguing that Scott's plan to shrink the state workforce 5 percent may be illogical, Montford noted that the state already is cutting its head count. He's technically right -- a Department of Management Services report released on Dec. 8 found that the state workforce shrunk from 2009 to 2010. But hardly in a measurable or significant way. Sometimes we find a statement is accurate but still needing clarification or additional information, and that's the case here. The state workforce shrunk between 0.1 and 0.4 percent depending on how you calculate it in 2010. But the workforce is bigger than it was at the end of 2006. We think those two facts combined seriously shade Montford's statement. So we say Mostly True.

Bill Montford

2010-12-10T16:05:55

2010-12-08

['None']

pomt-05000

Every "major newspaper in Texas calls" David Dewhurst "a moderate."

mostly false

/texas/statements/2012/jul/18/club-growth/club-growth-says-every-major-texas-newspaper-calls/

A Washington-based political action committee, Club for Growth Action, calls Republican U.S. Senate candidate Ted Cruz a "champion fighter" in a radio ad titled "Time" while saying his July 2012 runoff foe, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, has advocated a wage tax and more spending. The super-PAC ad’s narrator says: "It’s no wonder every major newspaper in Texas calls Dewhurst a moderate." (Listen to the ad to the right.) We’ve poked into various tax-and-spending claims about Dewhurst. Dewhurst once supported a payroll tax though none made it into law. Contrary to Cruz claims, Dewhurst has never advocated a state income tax and has presided over cuts in state budgets. For this foray, we wondered if every major Texas newspaper "calls Dewhurst a moderate." On the hustings, Cruz has hammered his contention that Dewhurst is a moderate, perhaps mindful that runoff voters are likely to be conservative-leaning. In this vein, a February 4, 2012, Austin American-Statesman news article quotes Rice University political science professor Mark Jones as saying that conservative Republican officeholders face a conundrum. "Either they govern effectively and at times don't follow conservative principles to the letter, or they follow conservative principles and they don't get things done," Jones said. "For many Republican Party activists, compromise is a dirty word." The Statesman story goes on to say that the Texas Senate, over which Dewhurst presides, runs on compromise: "For a bill to be considered, two-thirds of the 31 senators must agree, and Republicans are two seats shy of the votes needed to muscle legislation through without compromising with Democrats." The Republicans have not held a two-thirds’ Senate majority in modern times. Club for Growth spokesman Barney Keller offered as initial backup to the group’s claim headlines from articles printed in the two biggest Texas daily newspapers in 2007 and 2009 plus an October 2010 piece in the liberal Texas Observer political journal, which we set aside; the Observer is not a newspaper. Keller said he considers only the two papers with the most circulation in each state to be its "major" papers. Using the Nexis search service, we fetched the newspaper stories, which turned out not to be straight news accounts. One was a reporter’s commentary, in which the writer floats personal ideas or analysis, and the other was an editorial, the form of writing by which newspapers stake out positions on pages devoted to expressions of opinion. Let’s recap them. The January 29, 2007, news commentary by Clay Robison, then Austin bureau chief for the Houston Chronicle, opens: "Around the state Capitol, (Dewhurst) is generally considered a more ‘moderate’ Republican than the other two members of the top leadership trio — Gov. Rick Perry and (House) Speaker Tom Craddick. But — shhh — don't talk about that too loudly, lest you spoil Dewhurst's effort to polish his image among the many Texas Republicans who are decidedly more conservative and who may hold the key to his political future." Robison’s commentary also says that for "all the convenience they afford political writers, labels can be dicey, and people at different ends of the political spectrum often don't agree on characterizations. There is little argument, though, that Dewhurst is part of a Republican leadership that is more conservative than the Democratic leaders of just a few years ago." His column suggests that unlike Republicans, Democrats would not have closed a revenue shortfall in 2003 solely with budget cuts and higher tuition and likely would have raised taxes to minimize disruptions to public services. "But Dewhurst and the Senate helped soften some of the spending cuts in 2003," the column says, "and during last spring's special session on school finance, they led the way to securing a modest teacher pay raise." Finally, the commentary says Dewhurst "has to seek consensus or compromise in the Senate because the body's operating rules give clout to the Democratic minority. According to friends and associates, the article says, he also is more moderate philosophically than many of the conservative voters and activists in his party," though Dewhurst also "has to cultivate the votes" of conservatives who dominate the Texas Republican primary. The Jan. 14, 2009, Dallas Morning News editorial, headlined "Dewhurst should avoid playing partisan hand," airs concern that Dewhurst’s ambition for higher office could cause him to court "hard-core conservatives" while negotiating differences with House Speaker Joe Straus. "Dewhurst often has served as a moderate Republican in his six years as the Texas Senate's leader," the editorial says, "so chances are he will like having a pragmatic conservative like Straus across the Capitol. They should work better than Dewhurst did with former Speaker Tom Craddick, an ironclad conservative who quarreled with Dewhurst on issues such as school funding." "So which Dewhurst will lead the Senate?" the editorial says. "The moderate conservative who has tried to rein in his party from becoming extreme on issues like budget cuts? Or the Dewhurst who's trying to win over staunch conservatives for another office?" Keller, asked if he had other examples of major papers calling Dewhurst a moderate, passed along headlines for what turned out to be commentaries published in smaller newspapers in 2003, 2005 and 2007. In the September 21, 2003, San Antonio Express-News, editorial writer Bruce Davidson said in his column that Dewhurst had described himself as a "pro-growth conservative populist." The commentary continues: "His earlier performance" as lieutenant governor "provided evidence to back up that description. The lieutenant governor's approach to vital budget issues was refreshing in a legislative session marked by the rest of the GOP leadership's stubborn stampede toward cuts that hurt the state's poorest residents. Dewhurst led the charge to find non-tax revenues to balance the budget with fewer cuts in the Children's Health Insurance Program than those advocated by other Republican leaders. He showed a willingness to tackle tough issues by proposing increased sales taxes to solve the public school funding crisis. The plan wasn't perfect, but at least Dewhurst was willing to lead instead of delay... For the next two years, Dewhurst remains the best hope for finding some political middle ground in Austin." In the January 16, 2005, Corpus Christi Caller-Times, editorial writer Nick Jimenez wrote that in restoring some benefits to the Children’s Health Insurance Program, open to families of the working poor, "Dewhurst comes out as the moderate. He wants vision screening, dental and mental health benefits restored. And he wants the families who qualify to stay eligible for 12 months" without having to re-enroll in intervening months. And in an opinion column in the February 4, 2007, Statesman, editor Rich Oppel wrote: "Dewhurst got off to a good start in his first term as lieutenant governor, adopting a moderate stance and building the confidence of the 31-member state Senate." So, five commentary or editorial items -- including pieces in the state’s four largest newspapers -- published from 2003 through 2009 described Dewhurst as a moderate. Next, we widened our look by considering references to Dewhurst in the five biggest Texas papers according to daily circulation tallies listed in the Texas Daily Newspaper Association’s 2012 online directory: the Chronicle (circulation 383,953); Morning News (238,869); Fort Worth Star-Telegram (167,364); Statesman (133,979); and Express-News (129,411). Searching the Nexis database for "Dewhurst" plus "moderate" delivered nearly 300 articles, though the vast majority of the stories reflect only Cruz or Cruz supporters characterizing Dewhurst. Among other stories, an October 16, 2010, Morning News news article states: "When Dewhurst was first elected lieutenant governor in 2002, he was viewed as a conservative, but more moderate in his approach than then-House Speaker Tom Craddick, a Republican from Midland who was often at odds with his Senate counterpart. Even Senate Democrats praised Dewhurst in his first session. "But since then," the story continues, "he has pushed harder for GOP-backed causes, such as voter ID legislation and abortion restrictions. And his leadership of the Senate is now seen by many as more partisan than when he came into office." In a January 1, 2007, opinion column, William McKenzie of the Morning News voiced hopes for that year’s legislative session and speculated that the ambitious Dewhurst might play to the center. "His moderate instincts could prevail," the column says. Most recently, J.R. Labbe, editorial director for the Star-Telegram, wrote a May 14, 2012, commentary on the paper’s decision to endorse another candidate over Dewhurst in the May Senate primary. Her commentary says: "The Ted Cruz campaign describes Dewhurst as an ‘establishment moderate’ every chance it gets. It's meant as a put-down, but that's what Dewhurst used to be -- and he was an effective lieutenant governor." Our ruling From 2003 through 2010, major Texas newspapers published a few stories referring to Dewhurst as a moderate. All but once, though, the references were made in editorial, opinion or commentary contexts, and usually to say that Dewhurst had been more moderate than another leader or to hope that he would show moderation. The single relevant straight-news reference to Dewhurst in this fashion says he was initially viewed as a conservative, though as more moderate than then-House Speaker Tom Craddick. That story also says Dewhurst had since advocated more GOP-backed causes and been seen as more partisan. Broadly, it's our sense that saying that every major Texas daily "calls" Dewhurst a moderate leaves the impression the newspapers -- either two or five -- have all done so routinely or lately and always without qualifying the descriptive. That’s not so. We rate the statement as Mostly False. Update, 3:01 pm, July 23,2012: This story originally gave the wrong title for the radio ad.

Club for Growth

2012-07-18T15:48:19

2012-07-12

['Texas']

pomt-08789

There’s a mosque inside of the Pentagon.

false

/florida/statements/2010/aug/19/kendrick-meek/kendrick-meek-theres-mosque-pentagon/

Plans to build a mosque two blocks away from Ground Zero in New York City have stirred a national debate over the site’s appropriateness, and politicians from New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg to President Barack Obama are chiming in. So it seemed a timely question for Michael Putney, host of WPLG-10’s "This Week in South Florida," to ask Kendrick Meek and Jeff Greene about the mosque during a televised debate between the two Democratic Senate hopefuls on Aug. 15, 2010. When asked by Putney whether the location was the "right site" for a mosque and Muslim center, Greene responded, "Absolutely not." "I think that it may be legal," Greene added. "I support freedom of religion, freedom of speech, I understand that, but you know what, thousands of Americans died there, not just the victims in the building but how about all the rescuers and firefighters. I don't think when all the families have to go to mourn their losses, they should be looking at a mosque right there... It's insensitive to the victims." Meek wasn’t as direct in his response, noting that he wasn’t on the New York City Zoning Board and saying he was "not going to step in front of a decision that’s already been made in New York City." He added: "There should be some sensitivity there and I recognize it ... I might add there is a mosque inside of the Pentagon ... and also a chapel." Is there a mosque inside of the Pentagon? The official word from Pentagon spokesperson George Wright: "There is not, I repeat there is not a mosque inside of the Pentagon." "There is a non-denominational chapel ... about 20 steps from the center of impact," Wright told PolitiFact Florida, in a phone interview. The 80-seat interfaith chapel was opened in November 2002, part of a memorial to the 184 people killed on the flight and inside of the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001, Wright said. American Airlines Flight 77 was one of four planes hijacked on Sept. 11. Two of the jets were crashed into NYC’s Twin Towers, and the other was brought down in a field in Pennsylvania, after passengers and the flight crew fought with the hijackers to regain control of the plane. The chapel was built during the reconstruction of heavily damaged portions of the Pentagon, where 125 employees died, in addition to the 66 passengers on board the flight. Inside a room with stained glass windows, a wooden altar and a standing American flag, various religious services are held throughout the week. There are services for Catholics, Jews, Hindus, Mormons, Muslims and various Christian denominations. Footage from inside of the chapel was recently aired on CNN for those interested in taking a peek. Wright said that Muslim employees gather for daily prayer services Monday through Thursday at 2 p.m., and attend a Friday worship service run by an imam from a local mosque. A storage room at the chapel keeps prayer rugs that Muslim followers roll out facing East toward the city of Mecca. We wondered what classified a space as a mosque according to Islamic tradition, so we asked Shafayat Mohamed, imam of the Darul Uloom mosque in Pembroke Pines, Fla. "The main thing that makes a mosque a mosque is the establishment of praying five times a day at that spot," Mohamed said. "If people pray five times per day, then it is considered a regular mosque." While the chapel does not meet that definition, because prayer only occurs there once a day, Mohamed said the room could be considered another sacred space known as a "mussallaah." A mussallaah, according to Mohamed, is a place where Muslims consistently performs their mid-day prayer when they do not have access to a mosque. Any place from a university classroom to an office break-room could be considered a mussallaah so long as it is the venue that is consistently being used for prayer. "It may not officially be a mosque," Mohamed said of the Pentagon's chapel. "But if it’s somewhere where they repeatedly go to pray, someone working at the Pentagon might consider it their mussallaah, a place where they can all pray." So back to the question -- Was Meek correct in stating there is a mosque inside of the Pentagon? No; the Pentagon spokesman is emphatic that it's not a mosque. While Meek later added in his statement that there was also a chapel, the two are one and the same. He was correct in identifying that there was a place of worship and daily prayer for Muslims, but misspoke when calling it an actual mosque inside of the Pentagon. We rate his claim False.

Kendrick Meek

2010-08-19T20:17:14

2010-08-15

['None']

snes-02067

Automobile components emit dangerous levels of cancer-causing benzene fumes.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/air-scare/

Medical

David Mikkelson

Do You Know the Danger of Turning on the A/C After Starting the Engine?

8 June 2009

['None']

tron-03190

Tony Snow testimoney of faith during cancer

truth!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/tonyshow/

politics

Tony Snow testimoney of faith during cancer

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

pomt-06732

Gov. Rick Scott "is trying to get a waiver under the federal health care law that would deny consumers in Florida the right to the $60 million in rebates they have from their own HMOs."

half-true

/florida/statements/2011/aug/29/scott-randolph/rep-randolph-says-gov-scott-wants-take-away-60-mil/

Under the leadership of Florida Gov. Rick Scott and the state's Republican-dominated Legislature, Florida has rejected at least $19 million to implement parts of the controversial federal health care bill, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The decision shouldn't be much of a surprise. Scott, after all, spent millions of his own fortune to form Conservatives for Patients Rights to fight the health care law, and he then ran for governor on a platform of opposing the controversial legislation. (Florida also is leading a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the law, which is expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court.) But the state isn't only poised to turn down tax dollars, a Democratic state legislator now says. Rep. Scott Randolph, D-Orlando, told a nationwide cable audience recently that Scott is trying to prevent Floridians from accessing millions of dollars in rebates from their HMOs. Randolph -- whose wife Susannah Randolph heads up Florida Watch Action, a progressive group behind the Pink Slip Rick campaign -- made the claim during an interview with Al Sharpton on MSNBC on Aug. 11, 2011. "You've got a situation where Florida has the second-highest rate of uninsured," Randolph said. "We have one, obviously the highest rates of senior per capita, and here you have a governor that is absolutely determined to use to put ideology above the health of their own citizens. In addition -- I'm sorry, in addition to the money you already talked about, he also is trying to get a waiver under the federal healthcare law that would deny consumers in Florida the right to the $60 million in rebates they have from their own HMOs." Randolph made a couple of claims in his response to Sharpton, but we wondered if he was correct to say that Scott is trying to get a waiver under the federal health care law that would deny consumers the right to $60 million in rebates from their own HMOs. The $60 million Randolph is talking about Randolph was referring to a provision in the federal health care law known as "medical loss ratios," which require insurance companies to spend 80 to 85 percent of premiums on health care rather than on overhead starting in 2011. If insurers fail to meet that standard they must pay rebates to consumers starting in 2012. The federal government has provided this fact sheet about the new standard. The idea of medical loss ratios isn't new -- what's new here is the 80 percent threshold set up in the health care law. Currently, insurers in Florida must meet a 65 percent standard and HMOs must meet a 70 percent standard. As part of the law, states can apply to the secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services for a waiver to the new requirements. To receive a waiver, states must show that meeting the 80 percent standard may result in fewer choices for consumers. So far, HHS has granted a handful of waivers, but the majority of applications -- including Florida's -- were pending as of Aug. 23. The waivers are temporary -- all states must comply with the 80 percent standard by 2014. Florida's Office of Insurance Regulation applied for a waiver in March -- initially asking that the state be allowed to keep its current 65 percent and 70 percent standard. In June, OIR proposed phasing in the new 80 percent threshold: raising the standard to 68 percent in 2011, 72 percent in 2012 and 76 percent in 2013. In the state's application, Office of Insurance Regulation Commissioner Kevin McCarty argued that insurers may stop issuing new policies due to the threat of rebates, that four insurers have already notified the office that they intend to withdraw from the individual market as a result of the new rules and that the 80 percent requirement hurts companies trying to establish in Florida because administrative costs can be higher in the early years. "There is simply no way to build a growing company on that amount of money," McCarty wrote in the application. News articles cite the $60 million We found at least two news articles stating that if the waiver is granted, Florida's consumers would lose $60 million. "Floridians could miss out on an estimated $60 million in health-insurance rebates next year if state officials successfully block enforcement of spending rules in the year-old reform law," stated Health News Florida July 20. The article stated that about 340,000 Floridians would be eligible for the rebates. And the Palm Beach Post wrote on March 17: "Florida consumers would lose cash or insurance benefits worth about $60 million if Florida is allowed to opt out of a key element of health reform this year" -- the article attributed that conclusion to Citibank managed care industry analyst Carl McDonald. McDonald and a colleague wrote in a report to investors in March predicting that the federal government will deny Florida's application arguing that none of the six largest plans in the state -- which dominate the majority of the market -- will drop coverage in Florida if the 80 percent rule stays in place. McDonald sent us a copy of his 13-page report which states: "Based on the 2009 data, it appears consumers would have received around $60 million in rebates had minimum MLRs (minimum loss ratios) been in place last year, and given how favorable utilization was in 2010, it seems likely the rebates would have been even bigger last year." As part of its application for a waiver, Florida created two different scenarios. In the first scenario, they calculated how much insurance companies would have to pay in rebates under the new 80 percent standard using 2009 data. The figure? About $62 million (see column F). In the second scenario, the state showed the effect if the state's waiver request was granted -- allowing Florida to slowly ramp up to the 80 percent mark. In that case, insurers would be required to pay out about $4.8 million rebates (compared to $62 million in rebates without the waiver). What's critical to note in both scenarios is that the dollar figures are based on 2009 data, before insurers had to comply with the 80 percent threshold. More on that shortly. The state's response Setting aside the numbers for a moment, OIR spokesman Jack McDermott said it's wrong for Randolph to say Scott is trying to get the waiver. The application was actually made by Office of Insurance Regulation, which is overseen by Scott and the Cabinet acting as the Financial Services Commission. The Cabinet includes three Republicans, Chief Financial Officer Jeff Atwater, Attorney General Pam Bondi and Agriculture Commissioner Adam Putnam. On the numbers, McDermott notes that the $62 million figure is based on 2009 data -- at a time when insurers didn't have to meet the 80 percent standard but had to meet the state's 65 to 70 percent standard. Companies are now making changes in response to the new standard, he said. That's a flaw in trying to anticipate what the rebates might be. The $62 million assumes insurers would ignore the new standard and make no changes, exposing themselves to having to pay tens of millions of dollars in rebates. Like it or hate it, insurance companies -- and businesses -- attempt to make as much money as possible. So it's natural that if they're required to spend 65 to 70 percent of insurance premiums on health care costs (meaning the rest can be spent on overhead or kept as profits) that's what they are likely going to do. And if the standard is raised to 80 percent, they're likely to try and adapt -- out of fear of having to rebate premium payments. In this case it's the regulation that's influencing how a company operates, not free will. Will all companies move right in line with the new 80 percent threshold? Probably not. Will all insurers do absolutely nothing? Probably not. McDonald, in a rebuttal, acknowledged that the money won't necessarily be paid out in rebates. But dollars that aren't going to rebates, he said, are in theory helping lower health care costs or improving health care coverage. For example, if United knows it needs to get to an 80 percent medical loss ratio, it has choices: It can pay a rebate to get to the 80 percent threshold, it can lower their prices for customers by the same amount or it can offer additional health care coverage. "One way or another consumers benefit." Conclusion Randolph said Scott "is trying to get a waiver under the federal health care law that would deny consumers in Florida the right to the $60 million in rebates they have from their own HMOs." The statement has a few flaws. Technically Scott isn't seeking the waiver -- the Office of Insurance Regulation (an office overseen by Scott and the Cabinet) is. But that's a minor point. More importantly, the waiver wouldn't necessarily deny consumers $60 million in rebates. At most, the waiver would phase in possible rebates over three years. And while rebates are possible, they are not a given. That's because the dollar figure is based on how insurance companies operated before prior to having to meet the new 80 percent standard. We won't know to what extent insurers will make changes to meet that new 80 percent standard yet, but it's safe to assume that they will try to avoid paying out tens of millions of dollars a year in rebates. However, it is clear that Scott is supportive of getting a waiver for a program that was designed to be pro-consumer by resulting in either lower rates or better coverage. On balance, we rate this claim Half True.

Scott Randolph

2011-08-29T11:13:40

2011-08-11

['None']

pomt-02713

Protesters in La Crosse blocked an exit and surrounded a State Patrol car carrying the governor and were "beating on the windows and rocking the vehicle." When the car was "extricated" from the crowd, a truck blocked a second exit.

false

/wisconsin/statements/2013/dec/23/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-protesters-surrounded-his-ca/

The title of Gov. Scott Walker’s new book is "Unintimidated." So, it makes sense that it would be filled with details about how he stood up against his opponents. The book describes death threats against the governor and his family, protests outside the governor’s residence and -- of course -- the massive protests at the Capitol in Madison in the wake of Walker’s move in early 2011 to curtail collective bargaining for most public employees. One of the incidents has stood out, both for PolitiFact Wisconsin readers who have asked us to look into it and for those who have interviewed Walker as he has made the rounds promoting his book -- a face-to-face meeting with "hundreds of angry protesters" after a Feb. 15, 2011, appearance at a La Crosse factory. Here is how Walker describes it in the book: "As we prepared to leave, the state troopers saw that the protesters had physically blocked the entrance we had used to come onto the property. So they turned the squad car around and headed toward the other exit. We watched in disbelief as the throng of people rushed toward the second exit to block our path. As we tried to pull out, they surrounded the car and began beating on the windows and rocking the vehicle. "Just as we extricated ourselves from their grip, a truck pulled up and blocked our path, playing a game of chicken with the troopers. They turned the lights and sirens on and warned him to get out of the way. Eventually he backed up, and we sped off. "It was a lesson in how much our circumstance had changed in a matter of a few days. We were dealing with people who were so blinded by their anger that they were not in the least bit afraid to storm and shake a police car. We had never seen anything like it in Wisconsin before." Walker goes on to say that the incident, among others, prompted the addition of security officers and procedures for him and his family. The La Crosse visit underscores a central theme of his book that he stood up against increasingly aggressive protests. To be sure, it has been documented that Walker received death threats, including against his family, and emotions on both sides were high as Senate Democrats fled to Illinois to block a vote and Republicans maneuvered to pass the measure. Walker critics, meanwhile, have largely argued that protests were orderly and a straightforward exercise in democratic action. The most common refrain: "This is what democracy looks like." This item is not meant to settle that disagreement, but to look at one incident that keeps getting mentioned in the national media. One example, from a Nov. 23, 2013 appearance on the "700 Club" show hosted by conservative talk show host Pat Robertson: Robertson: "They were banging on your car. You were in danger of your life -- is that the way it was?" Walker: "Oh, it was; no doubt about it. We, at one point, coming out of a manufacturing business in La Crosse where they were literally shaking one of our squad cars that the State Patrol was in with me." So, is Walker right? Did protesters in La Crosse surrounded a State Patrol car carrying him and beat and rock the vehicle? Did a truck block the exit so they could not leave? The situation at the time The La Crosse incident came days after Walker surprised the state with his proposal to curb collective bargaining. The visit -- like the large protests in Madison and in other cities that Walker visited -- received considerable media coverage. That coverage from the time is a good starting point and one we will give extra weight. Why? News coverage or a document generated at the time -- say a police incident report or an internal email -- is less likely to be skewed by spin or memories. It is more likely to be accurate than a recollection from years later, particularly one that may well have been put into writing by another person entirely. In this case, Walker’s co-author, Mark Thiessen. As written, the incident is about more than angry protesters. It depicts an organized effort to prevent Walker from leaving -- one exit is blocked by the crowd, the windows "beaten" as the car is "rocked." Once "extricated," the car turns toward another exit which is immediately blocked by a truck "playing a game of chicken" with state troopers. The crowd rushes there as well. This does not describe an orderly protest. It describes chaos. Indeed, if an incident like this happened, it almost certainly would have been widely covered. At the time, both sides were actively portraying the other as extreme and unreasonable. Any incidents by protesters, in particular, became a talking point on conservative blogs and talk radio. We searched for details about the La Crosse story, specifically that protesters blocked and rocked the car in which Walker was riding, and found nothing. We could not locate any news report from the time that indicated Walker himself was physically threatened in such a way. We turned to Walker spokesman Tom Evenson and asked for details about what happened that day. He referred all questions to the book’s publisher, Penguin Group. Penguin spokeswoman Jacquelynn Burke offered a one sentence response: "The Wisconsin State Patrol confirms that this event took place." When we turned to the State Patrol, they didn’t offer much more detail. "I did connect with somebody in our dignitary protection unit and they were able to confirm for me that there was an incident," said Peg Schmitt, a spokeswoman for the Department of Transportation, which includes the State Patrol. We asked for any reports related to the incident, a copy of any dash-cam video, or for interviews with the troopers or staff involved. Anything with details. Schmitt said there was no formal report filed, and that no further information about the incident would be made public. The State Patrol viewed what happened in La Crosse as a routine incident, she said, adding the most important concern was "moving the governor to safety." She said no interviews or additional information would be provided because it could compromise the State Patrol’s ability to provide security in the future. What was reported at the time Looking for more information about the nature of the car incident, we turned to those involved in La Crosse, including local police, executives with the company Walker visited, the news media, and those involved in the protest. Walker’s visit was covered by the La Crosse Tribune in a story published the following day. The story noted that hundreds of protesters lined the street leading to Ted Mannstedt & Son, a structural steel manufacturer that employs about 25 people. "Chants of ‘Hey hey, ho ho, Walker’s got to go’ bled through the walls" and could be heard inside the company, the story said. The story included coverage of Walker’s speech, quoted protesters and included a photo of Walker’s car with protesters in the background. There was no mention of any altercation involving the car. La Crosse Tribune editor Chris Hardie said reporter Chris Hubbuch and photographer Peter Thomson covered Walker’s visit and watched his car leave the plant. "Both Chris and Peter were standing outside when the governor left," Hardie said. "Neither of them remembers any kind of car rocking or the car being surrounded, that kind of thing." The journalists reviewed a Google satellite view of the property and refreshed their memories about where they were standing in relation to Walker’s car, Hardie said. "They would have noticed if they were blocking and beating on his car," Hardie said. He noted, too, that the journalists would have also been alerted if they had seen flashing police lights or heard a siren from Walker’s car -- something else the governor described. They witnessed nothing of the sort. The view from La Crosse police The La Crosse Police Department had officers at the scene because the crowd had grown to several hundred and was in the street and on private property. "We were assisting by blocking off the streets and so forth," said Officer Lisa Barrix, department spokeswoman. She said there was no record of misbehavior by the crowd, including interfering with the car during Walker’s departure, and no arrests. No mention, either, of a truck blocking an exit. "There was nothing out of control," Barrix said. "We don’t have any record of any type of disturbance that I can locate." Two officials with the company, including owner Brad Mannstedt, recalled a large, noisy crowd. "There was at least a good 500 people on the street," said Mannstedt. He said protesters moved toward Walker’s car as he was leaving, and said it was possible some got close enough to swat at the vehicle with rolled up posters. "I don’t think there was any real malicious attempt to get at him. They were trying to get his attention," Mannstedt said. "It’s as if you were to take a newspaper, roll it up and slam it on your desk to get somebody’s attention." Bob Sandvick, a quality control supervisor at the firm, said he was paying close attention to the crowd to make sure the protesters did not trespass onto company property. Asked if he knew anything about protesters surrounding Walker’s car, he said "I’m not aware of that." Ward Keil of Onalaska, who was in the crowd, said the "mood of the crowd was a little belligerent." People screamed at cars that they believed were carrying Walker, but didn’t do anything more aggressive than that, he said. Also, he said, it seemed that authorities used a "dummy car" so protesters didn’t know which car the governor was in. Finally, local television news coverage of the governor’s visit included a video snippet of the governor’s car leaving the plant. The crowd is several feet away from the car, and the car pulls out of the parking lot and turns onto the street without pausing. There’s no evidence of a truck blocking the way. More from the Walker side We circled back to Walker’s office and asked to interview staff members or anyone else with first-hand knowledge of the incident. Former Walker communications director Chris Schrimpf, in an email, offered a description similar to that in the book. "I remember the day well because the hatred on the protesters' faces as they banged on the car and shook it was jarring. I remember they ran toward the car like an angry mob (because they were one), we were blocked by the other car, and we were stuck." Schrimpf declined to be interviewed about what happened. When pressed on what other evidence he could provide, Schrimpf pointed to a change in how travel around the state for media appearances was handled. He said that after the La Crosse visit, Walker stopped traveling by car. Instead, they flew and did appearances in airplane hangars. Walker’s schedule confirms the switch to air travel. That switch may be evidence the La Crosse visit signaled issues that required a security change, but the switch alone is not confirmation of the specifics as described by Walker and supported by his former aide. Remember: We are not checking whether Walker -- and Schrimpf -- were startled by the protesters, or even if they were frightened by them. Or whether the State Patrol was ready for what it encountered that day. We are looking at whether the exits were blocked and the car rocked. We are examining the words used in the book, ones that depict a direct and physical threat to the governor of Wisconsin and disregard for state troopers and local authorities. Walker gives an updated view With the story in the news, Patrick Anderson, a reporter for the Tribune, asked Walker about the incident when the governor appeared Dec. 6, 2013, in La Crosse for a bill signing. Walker described it this way: "As we came out, literally tons of the, a whole bunch of the protesters ran down to the other exit and got out in front of the exit and literally blocked the car and got around the car and were kind of banging on the sides," Walker said, according to a transcript of the interview the newspaper provided to PolitiFact Wisconsin. That’s pretty close to the language in the book, but then things start to differ a bit. In the book, Walker describes lights and sirens and the truck blocking the way. In the interview, he said a state trooper in the squad "rolled the window down and said pretty sternly, you need to move back from the car." Asked about being afraid (Robertson, in the TV interview, phrased it as being "in danger of your life", a statement Walker agreed with), Walker said: "I was concerned. It was, it was something that I had never experienced before. I don’t know if afraid is the right word but it certainly was jarring, is probably the better word than fear." Asked about the car rocking, Walker said: "Yeah they shook a little bit. ...signs were banging and that." The governor also addressed the police report question. "Of course there’s no police report. No tickets were issued, no arrests were made. The whole use of the (dignitary protection unit) … is that if you’re in a situation like that you get out. … The last thing you want to do is heighten it. But it was a pretty big wake up call." Our rating Walker says protesters in La Crosse blocked an exit and surrounded a State Patrol car carrying the governor and were "beating on the windows and rocking the vehicle." When the car was "extricated" from the crowd, a truck blocked a second exit. Yet we could find no mention of the car rocking incident before the book came out Nov. 19, 2013. Beyond the book itself and related public statements, there was no concrete evidence provided by Walker’s office, despite numerous inquiries by PolitiFact. Local police, journalists at the scene, and people from the company and the crowd do not recall seeing Walker’s car rocked or banged upon. And no one involved in news coverage, local law enforcement or witnesses reported seeing a truck blocking the car from leaving. Finally, in a recent interview, Walker toned down his description of the incident. Based on the available information, we think the book’s depiction of what happened -- an organized effort to prevent Walker from leaving that placed him in direct danger -- is False. You may comment on this article on the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel website.

Scott Walker

2013-12-23T05:00:00

2013-11-19

['None']

chct-00172

FACT CHECK: Does The US Have Trade Deficits With 'Almost All' Countries?

verdict: false

http://checkyourfact.com/2018/03/21/fact-check-us-trade-deficits-almost-all-countries/

Emily Larsen | Fact Check Reporter

4:39 PM 03/21/2018

['None']

pomt-12376

Texas leads the country in animal deaths by sodium cyanide M-44s.

true

/texas/statements/2017/jun/02/ann-hudspeth/austins-ann-hudspeth-says-texas-leads-nation-anima/

A toxic bomb that kills wild animals and sometimes even pets should be banned, an Austin resident urged in a letter to the editor of the Austin American-Statesman. Ann Hudspeth stirred our curiosity by writing: "Fourteen states are using cyanide bombs to kill wildlife — and Texas leads the country in animal deaths by sodium cyanide M-44s." Her April 2017 letter continued: "Thousands of coyotes, foxes, possums, raccoons and skunks meet their end this way in our state. According to figures from the Humane Society of the United States, last year seven Texas dogs were killed by these bombs." She closed her letter by advocating for a proposed national ban on sodium cyanide M-44s, pointing out legislation introduced in March 2017 by U.S. Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., to ban the use of sodium cyanide and another compound for predator control. A 2010 U.S. Department of Agriculture leaflet, from its Animal Health and Plant Inspection Service, calls sodium cyanide M-44s, which are placed with the permission of ranchers and landowners by the agency’s Wildlife Services branch, "an effective and environmentally sound wildlife damage management tool." The leaflet specifies how it works: "The spring-activated device delivers a dose of cyanide powder to targeted animals," who draw the poison into their mouths by tugging on baited capsule holders. According to a 2012 Sacramento Bee news series, the service’s roots reach to 1915, when Congress – hoping to increase beef production for World War I – allocated $125,000 to exterminate wolves, starting in Nevada. "Popular among ranchers, the effort was expanded in 1931 when President Herbert Hoover signed a law authorizing the creation of a government agency – later named the Branch of Predator and Rodent Control – ‘to promulgate the best methods of eradication, suppression or bringing under control’ a wide range of wildlife from mountain lions to prairie dogs," the Bee reported. Reader cites society research Hudspeth, describing herself as a Congressional District 10 Texas volunteer with the Humane Society of the United States, told us by email that she based the claim on a humane society "data sheet." The undated sheet, which she provided, has a chart indicating that in 2016, Texas ranked first among 14 states with 4,865 animals killed by sodium cyanide M-44s. According to the sheet, the animals felled in Texas included 4,210 coyotes, 521 gray foxes, 56 red foxes, 40 raccoons, 25 opossums, 7 dogs and 6 skunks. Oklahoma placed second, per the sheet, with 3,930 such animal deaths, with New Mexico third at 901 such deaths: SOURCE: Document, "Wildlife Services, M-44 Data by Species and State," 2016, the Human Society of the United States, undated (received by email from Ann Hudspeth, Austin, April 28, 2017 and confirmed by email, Wendy Keefover, carnivore protection manager, Wildlife Department, the Humane Society of the United States, April 30, 2017) We spot-checked and confirmed the society’s presented totals for the top three declared states from USDA-posted data. By email, we heard back from a service spokesman, Andre Bell, that the death counts by state are annually updated. Rates of animal deaths We recognized, too, that Texas was by far the most populous of the states with M-44 deaths. When we adjusted for population differences, using U.S. Census Bureau estimates, we found Oklahoma leading the 14 states with 10 such animal deaths for every 10,000 residents. By this metric, Texas ranked No. 8, with nearly 2 such deaths per 10,000 residents--higher than the rates for Nevada, Virginia, Idaho, Oregon, Utah and Colorado and lower than the rates for Oklahoma, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, New Mexico, West Virginia and Nebraska. We also tried ranking the deaths by state by adjusting for each state’s total area in square miles as posted by the bureau. By this sort, West Virginia had the highest rate of M-44 animal deaths per square mile--with Texas second, followed by Nebraska, North Dakota, Virginia, New Mexico and Oklahoma. Human exposures Hudspeth put us in touch with Wendy Keefover, a manager for the Humane Society of the United States, who guided us to news accounts of human and pet dog exposures to the sodium cyanide explosives intended to kill predators. A 1971 Sports Illustrated story described the 1966 death of Texas surveyor Raymond Medford, 49, near Fort Stockton due to accidental sodium cyanide exposure from a predecessor predator-control device to the M-44. Keefover wrote that through a Freedom of Information Act request to the Environmental Protection Agency, the society drew reports of four other Texans exposed to sodium cyanide, none fatally, all in connection with M-44s, from 1998 into 2011. Keefover also noted an April 20, 2017, National Geographic news story stating that according to the EPA, "an average of 30,000 M-44s, deployed by the federal government in concert with Western states and counties, are triggered each year. Baited to entice animals, they’re indiscriminate in their victims," the story said. Also noted: Wildlife Services reporting that in 2016, 12,511 of 76,963 coyotes killed for livestock protection were felled with M-44s. Most recently, Keefover noted, a March 2017 incident resulted in a boy and his dog briefly getting exposed to an M-44’s contents. According to an Idaho State Journal news story noted by the fact-checkers at Snopes.com, 14-year-old Canyon Mansfield was walking with his dog when he noticed what he thought was a sprinkler head protruding 6 inches from the ground. "Like many curious teenagers would, he bent down and touched the pipe, which erupted with a loud popping noise that knocked Canyon off his feet," the story said. "A hissing sound ensued and Canyon noticed his clothing and face were covered with an orange, powdery substance," the story said, which the boy washed off in nearby snow; his dog, though, shortly died. The story said Wildlife Services issued a statement referring to the dog’s death as a regretted "unintentional lethal take." Humane Society stands by claim Reminded that Texas falls far short of No. 1 in animal deaths due to M-44s once the federal counts are adjusted for each state’s population, a national Humane Society official, Carol Misseldine, replied by email that Hudspeth and the society intended a different emphasis. "Texas ranks number one in total numbers of animals killed by these cyanide bombs and we stand by our numbers," Misseldine wrote. Our ruling Hudspeth wrote: "Texas leads the country in animal deaths by sodium cyanide M-44s." Texas would have ranked lower if each state’s tally were adjusted for population or land area, but Hudspeth’s claim was only that Texas had more animal deaths than any other. We rate her claim True. TRUE – The statement is accurate and there’s nothing significant missing. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com

Ann Hudspeth

2017-06-02T14:59:26

2017-04-26

['Texas']

hoer-00866

Facebook Warning Claims Pedigree Dry Dog Food Killed Dogs

unsubstantiated messages

https://www.hoax-slayer.com/pedigree-dry-dog-food-warning.shtml

Brett M. Christensen

Facebook Warning Claims Pedigree Dry Dog Food Killed Dogs

August 16, 2013

['None']

pomt-07274

Compact fluorescent light bulbs are "toxic" and "not environmentally friendly."

half-true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/24/ameripac/group-opposed-light-bulb-law-claims-consumers-are-/

A fundraising letter making the rounds from a conservative political action committee draws a political line in the sand over light bulbs. "The Democrats have already voted to BAN our conventional lights bulbs (that you and I use even today!) in favor of DANGEROUS fluorescent light bulbs," writes Alan Gottlieb, chairman of AmeriPAC, a political action committee that largely supports conservative Republican candidates. In another fact-check, we looked at the first half of this claim, that Democrats voted to ban incandescent light bulbs (and rated it Pants on Fire). In this item. we'll address safety issues regarding the curly-shaped compact fluorescent light bulbs and whether the small amount of mercury contained in them presents an environmental hazard in homes. First, let's take a look at the arguments in the AmeriPAC letter and attached arguments from the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise Action Fund. The letter claims people will be required to "throw away" their existing incandescent light bulbs when the new law takes effect (a claim we rated Pants on Fire), and replace them with more expensive (a claim we rated Barely True) compact fluorescent light bulbs (CFLs) bulbs that are "supposedly" "environmentally safe." "I say 'supposedly' because the one thing the CFLs are not is 'environmentally safe,' " wrote Ron Arnold of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. The letter then relays an anecdote that has made Maine housewife Brandy Bridges a poster child of the anti-CFL movement. "Just ask Ellsworth, Maine housewife, Brandy Bridges, who dropped and shattered a compact fluorescent light bulb on the carpeted floor in her daughter's bedroom," the CDFE letter states. "Aware that CFLs are potentially hazardous, Bridges called the local Home Depot store to ask for advice. Home Depot told her that the CFL contained mercury and advised her to call the Poison Control hotline. Now remember, this is the replacement to the electric light bulb you've used for your whole life. You know...you drop one on the floor. It breaks. What do you do? Get a broom and dust pan and sweep it up. What happened when Brandy Bridges called the Poison Control hotline? "The hotline had her contact the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. The DEP sent Andrew Smith, a toxicologist, to her home. He sealed the room with plastic and told Bridges it would cost about $2,000 to clean up the mess from the one toxic $3 CFL device that broke on her floor." But when a CNN reporter followed up on her story in Sept. 3, 2009, he concluded that the fear engendered by the story was largely overblown. Maine officials said they gave Bridges some bad advice and eventually came to her house and cut out the carpet. "When contacted about the Bridges case, Maine officials said the advice to get a professional hazardous waste cleaner and remove the carpet was given before a policy on fluorescents was fully developed," the CNN story states. "They no longer tell people to call a hazmat crew or remove rugs, unless the homeowner is particularly concerned." Maine environmental officials, who continue to be enthusiastic supporters of CFL use, also studied the issue of mercury emissions from broken CFLs and published recommendations on how to clean them up if they break. For example, they recommended using index cards or playing cards to pick up broken pieces of the bulb (don't vacuum it up, as that can spread the mercury dust). Then, place the waste in a glass jar and take it to a recycling center. They also recommend ventilating the room for several hours by opening windows. "Our advice, if you have one of them break, just clean it up and get it out of the house," said toxicologist Dr. Deborah Rice of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention. "There's no question that mercury is a toxic substance. But the amount of it in CFLs is very small." She also tells people not to put CFLS in rooms where a small child might be likely to knock over a lamp. The CDFE letter also cites an April 3, 2011, San Jose Mercury News story that begins: The nation's accelerating shift from incandescent bulbs to a new generation of energy-efficient lighting is raising an environmental concern -- the release of tons of mercury every year. The most popular new light -- the curlicue, compact fluorescent light bulb, or CFL -- accounts for a quarter of new bulb sales and each contains up to 5 milligrams of mercury, a potent neurotoxin that's on the worst-offending list of environmental contaminants. Demand for the bulbs is growing as federal and state mandates for energy-efficient lighting take effect, yet only about 2 percent of residential consumers and one-third of businesses recycle them, according to the Association of Lighting and Mercury Recyclers. "If the recycling rate remains as abysmally low as it is, then there will certainly be more mercury released into the environment," said Paul Abernathy, executive director of the Napa-based recycling association. "Until the public really has some kind of convenient way to take them back, it's going to be an issue." However, CDFE does not include a later passage in the Mercury News article that presents a counterweight to concerns raised about small levels of mercury in CFLs: Even with mercury worries about CFLs, they still ultimately lead to fewer mercury emissions than incandescent lights, according to the California Energy Commission. Although the old-style bulbs contain no mercury, they're often powered by coal-fired electricity plants -- which release mercury as a pollutant. The end result is about 40 percent less mercury emissions per bulb when using energy-efficient CFLs, according to EPA figures. The fact is that incandescent light bulbs result in much more mercury being introduced into the environment, because they require four times as much electricity to operate, and much of that electricity comes from coal-fired power plants that emit mercury into the air, said Noah Horowitz, a senior scientist at the Natural Resources Defense Council. "If you are really concerned about mercury," Horowitz said, "you should really be buying CFLs even though they have small amounts of mercury in them." Claims about CFL safety concerns are "wildly exaggerated," he said. "They have extremely low levels of mercury, that's true," Horowitz said. "But it is still in the bulb when you use them. When you are finished with them you should recycle them." And there are now many more places to recycle spent CFLs than there were just two years ago, he said. For example, Home Depot and Lowe's both allow people to bring their spent CFLs there for free recycling, even non-customers. And, he said, CFLs generally have about half as much mercury in them as they did just a few years ago. Besides, he said, there is nothing in the law that requires people to buy CFLs. Light bulb companies have also developed halogen incandescent bulbs that meet the new efficiency requirements; and LED technology is another option. Neither of those types of bulbs contain mercury. It's misleading to warn about the small amount of mercury in CFLs without also noting that less efficient bulbs require more electricity and result in more mercury in the environment, said Steven Nadel, executive director of the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy. "They tell, shall we say, part of the story," Nadel said. The tone of the letter is clearly designed to heighten fears about CFLs in an effort to bolster an argument about government over-regulation. Mercury is, in fact, a toxic substance, and CFLs contain a small amount of mercury (a fraction of the amount contained in a mercury thermometer). But government and environmental officials say the risk they pose is very small, particularly if the light bulbs are disposed of properly and cleaned up properly if one shatters. Moreover, the warnings fail to acknowledge that there is a price to pay for sticking with less efficient traditional incandescent light bulbs. Those bulbs require far more electricity to operate, and, if they are powered by coal-fired power plants, result in even more mercury emitted into the environment. We rate the claim Half True.

AmeriPAC

2011-05-24T13:27:20

2011-05-16

['None']

snes-01551

Images show a baby half-human, half-lion hybrid that was found in Indonesia.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/half-human-half-lion-hybrid-creature-indonesia/

Fauxtography

Dan Evon

Was a Half-Human, Half-Lion Hybrid Creature Found in Indonesia?

20 October 2017

['Indonesia']

pomt-00516

The party in the White House is responsible for "a massive tax increase on the middle class."

mostly false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/jun/23/jeb-bush/jeb-bush-obama-caused-massive-tax-increase-middle-/

After six years with a Democrat in the White House, middle-class Americans face a bigger tax bill than they did before, former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said in a speech launching his 2016 presidential campaign. "The party now in the White House is planning a no-suspense primary, for a no-change election," he said in his June 15 remarks in Miami. "They are responsible for the slowest economic recovery ever, the biggest debt increases ever, a massive tax increase on the middle class, the relentless buildup of the regulatory state, and the swift, mindless drawdown of a military that was generations in the making." The claim that President Barack Obama and the Democrats have significantly raised taxes is bound to come up frequently in the 2016 election, so we decided to take a whack at it now. When we asked Bush’s campaign specifically what tax increases he was talking about, they pointed to the Affordable Care Act. It's a claim we heard before, and one that is flawed. Bush is correct that the Affordable Care Act raises taxes. But pinpointing the middle class as the recipient of "a massive tax increase" is misleading. It's the upper-class that is feeling the brunt of the impact. And health care subsidies, in some cases, may be offsetting tax increases. A note: The term "middle class" is hard to define, but for the purposes of this article, we are roughly looking at a generous threshold that comprises households making up to $250,000 a year. Health care taxes Let's get the big number out of the way. The health care law is expected bring in more than $1 trillion in new taxes over 10 years, according to a 2013 Joint Committee on Taxation report. The revenue is coming in through 21 new or increased taxes. Of those 21, 12 could affect households making less than $250,000 a year, according to the Tax Foundation. We’ve looked at this list of 12 before. Some primarily target the middle class, others could hit certain people within the middle class, and others are debatable. Bush’s campaign specifically sent us a list of the conservative Americans for Tax Reform’s "top-five" Obamacare middle class tax increases. The five Bush cited are all included in our larger list of 12. A couple of the taxes are obvious, direct taxes on individuals -- such as a tax on indoor tanning services and the penalty for not complying with the individual mandate to have insurance. These only apply to select individuals. Many more are applied to companies, such as the excise tax on certain medical device manufacturers or the so-called "Cadillac tax" on high-cost health insurance plans. Many economists anticipate that companies will pass these taxes along to consumers in the form of higher premiums or more expensive products. In any case, none of these taxes affects every single member of the middle class. It’s possible there are individuals who will incur most of these additional costs, while others face a couple. Whether or not these taxes are -- as Bush put it -- "massive" increases on the middle class depends on individual circumstances, said Kyle Pomerleau, a Tax Foundation economist. "I would say that the tax increase in total was large and that some of it definitely hits the middle class in some way," he said. "The degree to which individuals are impacted depends on their situation." For some perspective, total federal revenues are estimated to be about $40 trillion over 10 years. Tax revenue from the health care law, about $1 trillion, accounts for about 2.5 percent. Looking at the revenue just from the 12 that might affect middle-class taxpayers (as well as those in other income brackets), it’s about 1.25 percent of overall tax revenue. "Almost certainly, yes, taxes have gone up for lower- and middle-income people," said Roberton Williams, a fellow with the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. "But have they gone up a lot? Probably not." "If I were pulling words out of the air, ‘massive’ is not the word I would pull," Williams said. Many of these taxes tend to affect more people at the upper-end of middle class, because people with lower incomes are less likely to opt for the taxed services -- such as optional medical procedures or flexible savings accounts, Williams said Conversesly, some middle-income households might even see tax benefits of the Affordable Care Act -- namely, insurance premium subsidies -- outweigh any tax increases, he added. Premium tax credits will save taxpayers about $19 billion in 2015, while the five taxes cited by Bush and the Americans for Tax Reform list are worth much less, said Laurel Lucia, health care program manager at University of California Berkeley’s Center for Labor Research and Education. In total, those five taxes are worth about $11 billion per year, she said, citing congressional research. "I certainly agree Obamacare has increased taxes on the middle class," said University of California Los Angeles law professor Eric Zold. "But it is not clear that the middle class as a group are not better off by the combination of Obamacare costs and benefits." Other tax policies It's worth noting, of course, that the health care law isn’t the only policy that has impacted taxes in the last few years. Some changes have had a positive impact on the wallets of the middle class. Some changes have had a negative impact. Soon after taking office, Obama signed a bill raising the sales tax on cigarettes and other tobacco products to support the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Less than 20 percent of the population smokes, though polling shows that the percentage of the population that smokes decreases as income increases. In terms of tax cuts, Obama extended the Bush-era tax cuts for people making below $250,000, as well as an array of beneficial measures for small businesses. Additionally, he signed off on several stimulus tax measures to assist with the 2008 economic recovery -- such as a temporarily reduced payroll tax and an increased earned income tax credit. Some are still around, but others have phased out. It's fair to say that under Obama, for the most part, taxes have decreased for lower-income people and increased for upper-income people, Williams said. And it's a mixed bag for the middle class. Our ruling Bush said, "The party in the White House" is responsible for "a massive tax increase on the middle class." Bush pointed to the Affordable Care Act, which certainly does involve tax increases -- some of which affect the middle class, though not exclusively. It’s not accurate to call the tax increases for the middle class "massive." Some individuals might see their tax bill go up, while others see the tax benefits of the health care law outweigh the costs, and some might experience a change so small they don’t notice it. Looking only at the health care law also ignores other pieces of tax policy that have affected the bottom line for the middle class. We rate this claim Mostly False.

Jeb Bush

2015-06-23T16:36:54

2015-06-15

['White_House']

goop-00510

Victoria Beckham Planning Fashion Reality Show?

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/victoria-beckham-fashion-reality-show/

Andrew Shuster

Victoria Beckham Planning Fashion Reality Show?

6:03 pm, August 6, 2018

['None']

snes-03640

A groundbreaking study showing that algae can draw an alternative source of energy from other plants suggests that humans might be able to draw energy from each other in a similar way.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/study-suggests-humans-can-literally-feed-off-each-others-energy/

Science

Alex Kasprak

Study Confirms Humans Can Literally Feed Off Each Other’s Energy

2 November 2016

['None']

afck-00416

“Nearly 80,000 land claims, totalling 3.4 million hectares, have been settled and 1.8 million people have benefited.”

mostly-correct

https://africacheck.org/reports/a-first-look-at-president-jacob-zumas-2014-state-of-the-nation-address/

President Jacob Zuma’s sixth State of the Nation address fact-checked

2014-02-14 12:39

['None']

pomt-04640

On U.S.-Israeli relations, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu "set the record straight — he said, our two countries have 'exactly the same policy' (and) 'our security cooperation is unprecedented.'"

half-true

/florida/statements/2012/sep/13/john-kerry/john-kerry-says-netanyahu-praised-us-israel-relati/

Responding to Republican complaints that President Barack Obama has not been fully supportive of Israel, Democrats are launching a strident defense. U.S. Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., chair of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and his party’s 2004 presidential nominee, defended Obama’s policies at the Democratic National Convention on Sept. 6. "Barack Obama promised always to stand with Israel to tighten sanctions on Iran—and take nothing off the table. Again and again, the other side has lied about where this president stands and what this president has done," Kerry said. "But Prime Minister Netanyahu set the record straight—he said, our two countries have ‘exactly the same policy…’—’our security cooperation is unprecedented...’ When it comes to Israel, I'll take the word of Israel's prime minister over Mitt Romney any day." Kerry’s remarks seemed to answer criticism from Romney’s acceptance speech at the Republican National Convention in Tampa. There, Romney said that Obama "has thrown allies like Israel under the bus." Both parties are clamoring for the Jewish vote in this election. Although Jewish Americans overwhelmingly voted for Obama in 2008, even a slight decrease in November could make a difference in crucial swing states such as Florida. We wanted to see if Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu actually said what Kerry claimed and if it supported his overall point in rebutting Romney’s criticism. Romney’s criticism of Obama on Israel Romney has criticized Obama and his administration with respect to Israel on multiple fronts. Most often, he’s said that Obama hasn’t done enough to stop Iran’s alleged quest to obtain nuclear weapons. But he’s also criticized Obama for not visiting Israel as president (we rated that True) and not recognizing the country’s capital as Jerusalem (we rated that Half True.) Obama later got the Democrats to reinsert language in their party platform that says Jerusalem is the capital. It’s not clear from Romney’s criticism that his policies would be different from Obama’s, a point we’ll look at more closely in just a bit. But Romney regularly criticizes the administration for not being supportive enough of Israel. Our research shows that the relationship between the United States and Israel is generally strong, although there have been some tensions between Obama and Netanyahu that have grown more prominent as election day nears. In fact, one of the quotes Kerry invoked came from just such a time, going back to 2011 when Netanyahu and Obama exchanged public remarks on how the Middle East peace process should proceed. "Our security cooperation is unprecedented" In a speech at the State Department on May 19, 2011, Obama expressed support for two states, adding, "The borders of Israel and Palestine should be based on 1967 lines with mutually agreed swaps." Obama’s idea wasn’t new -- the New York Times reported that President George W. Bush and Bill Clinton directed their staff to pursue the same idea -- but his comments angered Israeli officials. The New York Times noted that the 1967 border issue "has always been privately understood, not spoken publicly, and certainly not publicly endorsed by a sitting American president." A day after Obama’s comments, the two leaders met at the White House. Here’s how the Washington Post reported the meeting: "After the president's brief welcome, the prime minister leaned into him with cameras catching every moment. He suggested bluntly that Obama had little, if any, understanding of how peace efforts and the broader Middle East worked. "’I think for there to be peace, the Palestinians are going to have to accept some basic realities,’ Netanyahu told him. Publicly calm, Obama was privately irate at the treatment." Then Netanyahu made his own speech on May 23, 2011. "Yesterday, President Obama spoke about his iron-clad commitment to Israel's security," Netanyahu said. "He rightly said that our security cooperation is unprecedented." That’s the line Kerry quoted. Netanyahu also thanked both American political parties and said the two countries "stand shoulder to shoulder fighting common enemies, protecting common interests" and were cooperating in science, technology and other areas. But near the end of his speech, Netanyahu said this: "Tomorrow in Congress, I'll describe what a peace between a Palestinian state and the Jewish State could look like. But I want to assure you of one thing. It must leave Israel with security. And therefore, Israel cannot return to the indefensible 1967 lines." The news from Netanyahu’s speech wasn’t that he said something nice about America’s president and the U.S. The news was about the 1967 border spat. Our two countries have "exactly the same policy" The other line Kerry quotes came from Netanyahu’s remarks of March 2012 when he said that the U.S. and Israel have "exactly the same policy" with respect to Iran: "I want to explain why Iran must never be allowed to develop nuclear weapons," Netanyahu said. "U.S. President Barack Obama has reiterated his commitment to prevent that from happening. He stated clearly that all options are on the table, and that American policy is not containment. Well, Israel has exactly the same policy. We are determined to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons; we leave all options on the table; and containment is definitely not an option...." But in the same speech Netanyahu also said diplomacy and sanctions haven’t worked: "I appreciate President Obama’s recent efforts to impose even tougher sanctions against Iran. These sanctions are hurting Iran’s economy, but unfortunately, Iran’s nuclear program continues to march forward. Israel has waited patiently for the international community to resolve this issue. We’ve waited for diplomacy to work. We’ve waited for sanctions to work. None of us can afford to wait much longer." As we were preparing this report, Netanyahu was again complaining about U.S. actions on Iran. "Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don’t have a moral right to place a red light before Israel," he said. Policy differences between Obama and Romney We asked Aaron David Miller, a former State Department advisor on Arab-Israeli affairs for Democrat and Republican Secretaries of State, about the differences between Romney and Obama on Israel. Miller wrote an article debunking myths about Israel and U.S. foreign policy published in the Jewish Journal the day after the conventions. He had criticisms for both political parties. He said it's a myth that Obama is hostile to Israel, and that Romney’s comment that Obama has "thrown Israel under the bus" is "ridiculous." But he also noted that Obama supporters are wrong to claim Obama is just as pro-Israel as Clinton or Bush. "Combined with a tendency to see the conflict through the more detached unemotional filter of American national interests, Obama doesn’t have the instinctive emotional attachment to Israel of Bill Clinton or George W. Bush," Miller wrote. If Romney won, "he’d probably give more slack on the issues of settlements and the peace process," Miller wrote, and would be "personally sympathetic to the notion of bombing before accepting an Iranian bomb." "The fact is, with the exception of the peace process that isn’t right now, Romney’s policies toward Israel would be much more rhetorically supportive but not that much different than Obama’s. The tone of the relationship would change — more warmth and good cheer — but I would bet that within a year Netanyahu would find some way to begin to annoy even his best friend Mitt Romney." Netanyahu and Romney have known each other since they worked together in Boston in the 1970s. Our ruling During his speech at the DNC, Kerry answered Romney’s criticism of Obama’s Israel policy with these words: "But Prime Minister Netanyahu set the record straight—he said, our two countries have ‘exactly the same policy…’—’our security cooperation is unprecedented...’" Kerry did accurately quote Netanyahu’s remarks in 2011 and 2012. But Kerry omitted any discussion of the real tensions that exist between Obama and Netanyahu, particularly about Obama’s 2011 comments on Israel’s 1967 borders. And Kerry ignored Netanyahu’s statements in 2012 that showed he wasn’t keen on waiting for diplomacy to work in Iran for much longer. For cherry-picking and lack of context, we rate this claim Half True. PolitiFact Florida is partnering with 10 News for the election. See video fact-checks here.

John Kerry

2012-09-13T13:43:44

2012-09-06

['Benjamin_Netanyahu']

snes-00365

Does Trump Donate All of His Presidential Salary, While Obama Donated None?

mixture

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-obama-salary-donations/

Politics

David Emery

Does Trump Donate All of His Presidential Salary, While Obama Donated None?

8 July 2018

['None']

goop-02798

Kanye West Furious He Didn’t Make Forbes Richest Rappers List,

1

https://www.gossipcop.com/kanye-west-forbes-richest-rappers-2017-five-wealthiest-hip-hop-list/

Andrew Shuster

Kanye West NOT Furious He Didn’t Make Forbes Richest Rappers List, Despite Report

5:21 pm, May 12, 2017

['None']

goop-01456

Kate Middleton Planning Meghan Markle’s Wedding,

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/kate-middleton-meghan-markle-wedding-planning/

Shari Weiss

Kate Middleton NOT Planning Meghan Markle’s Wedding, Despite Report

3:00 am, March 3, 2018

['None']

snes-02785

It is illegal to take photographs of the Eiffel Tower at night without explicit permission.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/photographs-of-eiffel-tower-at-night/

Uncategorized

Stephanie Larsen

Is it Illegal to Take Photographs of the Eiffel Tower at Night?

13 March 2017

['None']

goop-01310

Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Wedding “Wrecked” By “Bitter Family Feud”?

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/meghan-markle-prince-harry-wedding-family-feud/

Shari Weiss

Meghan Markle, Prince Harry Wedding “Wrecked” By “Bitter Family Feud”?

2:32 am, March 27, 2018

['None']

snes-01661

Fentanyl-laced marijuana use is a real and growing concern in the United States.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fentanyl-laced-marijuana-rise/

Medical

Alex Kasprak

Is Fentanyl-Laced Marijuana Use on the Rise?

26 September 2017

['United_States']

tron-02925

Obama Aide Evelyn Farkas Admits Spying on Donald Trump’s Team

mostly fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/evelyn-farkas-admits-spying-trump/

politics

['barack obama', 'congress', 'donald trump', 'fbi', 'russia']

Obama Aide Evelyn Farkas Admits Spying on Donald Trump’s Team

Mar 30, 2017

['None']

goop-01875

Kendall Jenner “In Tears” Over Golden Globes Backlash,

1

https://www.gossipcop.com/kendall-jenner-golden-globes-backlash-wrong/

Shari Weiss

Kendall Jenner NOT “In Tears” Over Golden Globes Backlash, Despite Report

2:49 pm, January 9, 2018

['None']

snes-06281

A dog was killed when it bit into a tennis ball booby-trapped with explosives.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dog-killed-by-tennis-ball/

Critter Country

David Mikkelson

Was a Dog Killed by a Tennis Ball?

28 November 2000

['None']

pomt-08946

The Department of Health and Human Services is providing $160 million to the state of Pennsylvania to set up a new high-risk insurance pool program that would cover any abortion legal in the state.

false

/ohio/statements/2010/jul/23/john-boehner/john-boehner-gop-claims-federal-taxpayers-will-fun/

As Congress struggled to pass health reforms earlier this year, anti-abortion groups and members of Congress fretted the legislation would permit taxpayer dollars to be used for the controversial procedure, overturning years of precedent that banned use of federal money for abortions except in cases of rape, incest, or to save a mother’s life. To ease those fears, President Obama signed an executive order that reaffirmed the bans would continue in health insurance programs developed under the new bill. Obama’s gesture was needed to win support from key anti-abortion Democrats, including Bart Stupak of Michigan, Marcy Kaptur of Toledo and Steve Driehaus of Cincinnati. But Republicans still weren’t convinced. "Make no mistake, a ‘yes' vote on the Democrats' health care bill is a vote for taxpayer-funded abortions," House GOP Leader John Boehner of Ohio said at the time. As states prepare to implement a part of the law that encourages them to create temporary high risk plans for people with pre-existing medical conditions who have trouble finding affordable insurance, Republicans like Boehner and anti-abortion groups like the National Right to Life Committee are claiming the new high risk insurance pools will provide a backdoor way for the federal government to fund abortions. Pennsylvania was among the first states to put together a plan, and publicize its details. "The Department of Health & Human Services is providing $160 million to the state of Pennsylvania to set up a new high-risk insurance pool program that would cover any abortion legal in the state," Boehner said in a news release July 13. "This is the boldest admission yet from the Obama administration that the President’s Executive Order on taxpayer-funded abortion was a sham," Boehner said. "The fact that the high-risk pool insurance program in Pennsylvania will use federal taxpayer dollars to fund abortions is unconscionable." Ohio’s eight GOP members of Congress have kept up the chorus. On July 15, Rep. Jim Jordan of Urbana claimed the Pennsylvania high-risk insurance program would include abortion coverage and demonstrate that Kaptur, Driehaus and Obama violated their promise that "ObamaCare would not allow tax dollars to be used to take the life of unborn children." "The Stupak-Kaptur-Driehaus executive order, signed by President Obama was not worth the paper it was printed on," Jordan’s statement said. "It was merely a ploy to give so-called pro-life Democrats an excuse to vote for a federal takeover of health care that allows taxpayer funding of abortion.." Then on July 19 the group of eight – Boehner, Jordan, Steve LaTourette of Bainbridge Township, Patrick Tiberi of Genoa Township, Jean Schmidt of Loveland, Michael Turner of Centerville, Bob Latta of Bowling Green and Steve Austria of Beavercreek – wrote to Gov. Ted Strickland expressing concern that other states’ high risk health plans will cover elective abortions, and urging Strickland to make sure that doesn’t happen in Ohio. "Your voice as Governor is needed to help ensure that not a dime of the $152 million in federal funds Ohio is set to receive for its high-risk pool plan goes toward covering abortions," their letter said. At Strickland’s request, Ohio Department of Insurance Director Mary Jo Hudson replied with a letter that insisted the high risk pool the state plans to launch on Aug. 1 will comply with federal law, and not cover abortion services "except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered." Will these new plans actually permit individuals with pre-existing medical conditions to get federally funded abortions? Boehner’s statement is nearly identical to one made by the National Right to Life Committee that we analyzed. They said that the Obama administration will give Pennsylvania $160 million to pay for health insurance plans that cover "any legal abortion." Here’s what we found when we analyzed that statement July 16. Pennsylvania’s 60-page proposal outlines a standard health care plan that says this about abortion: "Includes only abortions and contraceptives that satisfy the requirements of 18 Pa.C.S. § 3204-3206 and 35 P.S. §§10101, 10103-10105. ... Elective abortions are not covered." Those statute numbers refer to Pennsylvania's abortion laws, where abortion is, for the most part, legal. The code says that abortions may be performed if a doctor determines that "in his best clinical judgment, the abortion is necessary." The only mention the statute makes of forbidding an abortion is when it is "sought solely because of the sex of the unborn child." Douglas Johnson, National Right to Life Committee’s legislative director, said those statute numbers mean that the proposal is meant to include any legal abortion. "We know how this stuff works," Johnson said. "He'll say 'It's not elective, it's necessary.'" The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services responded in a statement issued July 14: "In Pennsylvania and in all other states abortions will not be covered in the Pre-existing Condition Insurance Plan (PCIP) except in the cases of rape or incest, or where the life of the woman would be endangered." Pennsylvania’s insurance department, issued its own statement July 15: "Pennsylvania will – and has always intended to – comply with the federal ban on abortion funding in the coverage provided through our federally funded high risk pool. This program will provide much-needed assistance for the sickest of the sick. The likelihood that any of those covered will seek abortion services is remote, but if they do need such services, they will have to pay for them out their own pocket." The Department of Health and Human Services is still developing regulations for many aspects of health care, and they're trying to do it with some haste. New Mexico, for example, submitted a plan for the Pre-existing Condition Health Insurance Plan that explicitly included abortion services, but then withdrew it quickly when it learned that the federal government would forbid the services, Associated Press reported. The Obama administration has clearly stated it won’t allow abortion to be covered under the new plans, save for cases of rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. State officials in Pennsylvania and Ohio have insisted their new programs will comply with the federal ban. The high-risk plans in question are designed to cover older people with chronic health conditions rather than the healthy young women most likely to seek elective abortions. We find Boehner’s statement to be False. Comment on this item.

John Boehner

2010-07-23T11:30:00

2010-07-13

['Pennsylvania']

abbc-00155

The claim: Jo Harding, the manager of Bush Blitz, says there's estimated to be about 75 per cent of Australia's biodiversity that's largely unknown

in-the-green

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-07/75-per-cent-of-species-unknown-fact-check/5649858

The claim: Jo Harding, the manager of Bush Blitz, says there's estimated to be about 75 per cent of Australia's biodiversity that's largely unknown

['biological-diversity', 'environment', 'animals', 'science-and-technology', 'australia']

['biological-diversity', 'environment', 'animals', 'science-and-technology', 'australia']

Fact check: Are 75pc of Australia's living species unknown?

Sun 7 Sep 2014, 10:18pm

['Australia']

abbc-00093

The claim: Barry O'Farrell says NSW collects more from proceeds of crime than all other states and the federal government combined.

in-the-red

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-26/barry-ofarrell-wrong-on-proceeds-of-crime/5088132

The claim: Barry O'Farrell says NSW collects more from proceeds of crime than all other states and the federal government combined.

['police', 'crime', 'police-sieges', 'law-crime-and-justice', 'states-and-territories', 'government-and-politics', 'liberals', 'nsw', 'australia']

['police', 'crime', 'police-sieges', 'law-crime-and-justice', 'states-and-territories', 'government-and-politics', 'liberals', 'nsw', 'australia']

Proceeds of crime: Do NSW police seize more than the rest of Australia?

Tue 10 Dec 2013, 12:40am

['None']

para-00076

Says companies with women on their boards of directors are more financially successful.

true

http://pandora.nla.gov.au//pan/140601/20131209-1141/www.politifact.com.au/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/aug/09/julie-collins/how-make-more-money-put-women-board/index.html

['gender equity']

Julie Collins

David Humphries, Peter Fray

How to make more money: put a women on the board

Friday, August 9, 2013 at 2:53 p.m.

['None']

snes-00157

A scientific study demonstrated that conspiracy theorists are generally more sane than other people.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/conspiracists-most-sane/

Science

Alex Kasprak

Did a Scientific Study Prove That “Conspiracists” Are “The Most Sane of All?”

27 August 2018

['None']

pomt-05374

The Obama White House recognizes a "baby that has not been born" for security purposes.

mostly false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/08/national-right-life-committee/obama-white-house-security-unborn-babies/

The National Right to Life Committee cried foul on Tuesday after it obtained an email from an Obama administration aide asking future White House visitors to provide information about their unborn babies. In a news release, the anti-abortion group said the policy was hypocritical because of the Obama administration's support for abortion rights. "Obama White House recognizes ‘baby that has not been born’ for White House security purposes, but tolerates legal abortion to moment of birth in District of Columbia," the May 8, 2012, news release said. The release was a response to an early-morning email from the White House Visitors Office detailing how to record the personal information of babies still in utero. "Crazy as it may sound, you MUST include the baby in the overall count of guests in the tour. It’s an easy process," Visitors Office director Ellie Schafer wrote to congressional staffers, specifying that nine zeros should be filled in for the infant’s Social Security Number. We confirmed that the email really did come from Schafer and is unaltered. But its meaning was wildly misconstrued. The National Right to Life Committee headline suggested that fetuses were being screened for security at the White House gate, while a Washington Times story said, "The pro-choice Obama White House requires pregnant visitors to count their unborn child as a person for tours of the executive mansion." Numerous conservative websites also picked up the story. Creative Minority Report ran it under the headline "Pro-Abort White House Counts Unborn as People on Tours." The email The confusion began with an early morning email to staffers on Capitol Hill. Schafer wrote that her office has received "a number of calls regarding how to enter security information for a baby that has not yet been born." She provided detailed instructions on how to fill out the security information: The baby’s security information should be entered as follows: LAST NAME: The family’s last name FIRST NAME: "Baby" as a first name MIDDLE NAME: NMN as in No Middle Name DOB: Use the date you are submitting the request to us as their birthday GENDER: if the parents know put that gender down if not, you can enter either M or F as we’ll ask you to update it at the time of birth SOCIAL: As they will not have a SSN and are under 18, you will not need to enter this field. Again if the spreadsheet asked for a social enter 9 zero’s (not the word nine zeros but 000000000 and yes it happens!) CITIZEN/CITY/STATE: The citizen, city and state should be entered the same as the parents Once the baby is born, you should send an email to the VO inbox with the tour request ID number, the baby’s given name, their actual birthday and gender. We can then update the newborn guest’s information within our system. Please note that any changes to security information for newborns must be made at least 48 hours in advance. She closed saying, "Keep being awesome!" The Right to Life Committee and some conservative websites said the email indicated the White House was recognizing that fetuses were relevant for security. The Right to Life Committee’s legislative director, Douglas Johnson, said in the press release, "It is ironic that President Obama's staff recognizes the existence of unborn babies for purposes of providing security within the White House -- yet, there is no indication that President Obama has any problem with the fact that throughout the District of Columbia, abortion is now legal for any reason up to the moment of birth," Johnson said. "Notably, the newsletter provides no guidance on what the staff should do if an unborn baby is first registered for security purposes, but then aborted." But is the Right to Life Committee correct that an unborn child has been recognized for security purposes? In other words, does a pregnant woman count as two at the White House? Ed Donovan, spokesman for the U.S. Secret Service, said people misunderstood the email. Schafer’s email, he said, was an explanation of how to fill out information for pregnant women who will bring their new baby on future White House tours. "This refers to a pregnant woman providing information for a tour in the future that will include the new family member. So when a 7-month pregnant woman is providing information for a tour that is 4 months in the future, there is a ‘place holder’ for the new baby," Donovan wrote in an email. In a phone call, he acknowledged the procedure may seem "a little anal." "I know people are construing it as an unborn child, but the visit isn’t occurring (now). If a pregnant woman shows up at the White House, we don’t count two people. It’s sort of a way of expediting (the process) so no one gets hung up at the gate," he said. Our ruling The National Right to Life Committee said that the White House recognizes a "baby that has not been born" for security purposes. It collects that information, but not for the reasons Right to Life suggests. The White House policy does not confer personhood status on fetuses, and it doesn’t count them if their mothers take a tour while pregnant. The policy helps pinpoint the headcount for future tours. The statement is Mostly False.

National Right to Life Committee

2012-05-08T18:50:03

2012-05-08

['None']

vees-00288

Asked in a Feb. 13 press conference who would represent the government before the ICC should its preliminary examination on drug-related killings move forward, Calida questioned the authority of the international court to investigate the president. He said the 1987 Constitution is “higher than any treaty,” including the Rome Statute that created the ICC.

none

http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-calida-falsely-claims-duterte-immunity

Duterte’s immunity from suit during his tenure does not stop the ICC from investigating him.

Duterte,ICC,immunity,CHR,calida

VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Calida falsely claims Duterte immunity exempts him from ICC probe, accuses CHR of bragging about probing the president

February 23, 2018

['Rome_Statute_of_the_International_Criminal_Court']

pomt-10444

If you are driving on average in America this summer, you'll save — according to Department of Energy figures — about $70.

false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/may/06/hillary-clinton/only-if-you-are-a-family-of-four/

Sen. Hillary Clinton has urged a three-month gas tax holiday as a way of lightening the load on drivers this summer. The gas tax is 18.4 cents a gallon for gasoline — and even higher at 24.4 cents for diesel — so a cut could help consumers. Clinton has said consumers will save $70 from the holiday. Sen. Barack Obama, who opposes the holiday as a political gimmick, says it will only save $28. Who's right? The Clinton campaign referred us to Energy Department numbers that show a family of four with two cars uses 1,519 gallons of gas a year. (The exact average is 2.3 vehicles per family.) Take a quarter of the 1,519 gallons to represent the three months of summer, and you would see a savings of $69.87 on gas taxes. The number and the math are correct, and since driving tends to increase in the summer, it may be a little low. Barack Obama, on the other hand, arrived at $28 by calculating per-vehicle savings. We examined his statement in depth and rated it Mostly True. We'll note here that many economists think it will be even less than that because the entire tax cut won't be reflected in the price at the pump. Certainly, oil companies and retailers could decide to keep part of the money for themselves. But a cut in prices will also stimulate demand by making people more willing to use their vehicles. Increased demand is likely to send prices up, eating away at the 18.4 cents a gallon. The problem we have with Clinton's number is that she left out the reference to a family of four when she talked about it on This Week with George Stephanopoulos on May 4, 2008. "But if you are driving on average in America this summer, you'll save — according to Department of Energy figures — about $70," she said. And it wasn't the only time she left out the family-of-four qualifier. We found Clinton made the following statements the day after the appearance on This Week. "By our numbers, the Department of Energy suggests that it would save consumers on average $70," she said on Fox News' Fox & Friends. To Katie Couric, on the CBS Evening News , Clinton said she is "trying to give folks, on average it would be $70. For a lot of people it would be a lot more." "So here's what I believe, is let's give you a break this summer. For the average person it would be about $70," she said at a campaign event in Greenville, N.C. We'll say it again: You only get to $70 by calculating the savings for a family of four, which has two vehicles. Leaving out that qualifier makes a big difference. In fact, if $70 is the savings for a family of four with at least two vehicles, it seems likely that the average savings for an individual would be closer to half of $70 than the $70 Clinton claims. We rate her statement False.

Hillary Clinton

2008-05-06T00:00:00

2008-05-04

['United_States']

tron-00948

Mail Server Virus

truth! & fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/mail-server-virus/

computers

Mail Server Virus

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

pomt-04832

Says "a Republican hasn't won [an election] for a presidency in New Jersey since 1988."

true

/new-jersey/statements/2012/aug/15/chris-christie/chris-christie-says-mitt-romney-isnt-counting-new-/

Mitt Romney can rely on the vote of at least one New Jerseyan in November: Gov. Chris Christie. But even Christie, a top Romney surrogate tapped to deliver the keynote address on Aug. 28 at the Republican National Convention, admits the rest of the state isn’t likely to swing in favor of the presumptive Republican presidential nominee. "I don't think Mitt Romney's counting our electoral votes in his column. I believe the overwhelming likelihood is that President [Barack] Obama will win New Jersey. I think all the polls indicate that," Christie said during an Aug. 7 press conference "A Republican hasn't won [an election] for a presidency in New Jersey since 1988. And so it's a been a long haul. Could it happen? Sure, it could happen. But I think if Mitt Romney wins New Jersey he's probably going to win in 45 other states," Christie said. PolitiFact New Jersey can’t check Christie’s electoral prediction, but we can test his claim about the state’s past votes on the Truth-O-Meter. Was 1988 the last time New Jersey went red in a presidential election? It’s true: a majority of voters in the Garden State cast votes in 1988 for the then-GOP presidential candidate George H. W. Bush. That wasn’t an aberration at the time. Republican nominees had won New Jersey in every presidential election since 1968. Bush took New Jersey in 1988 with more than 56 percent of the vote, defeating Democratic rival Michael Dukakis to secure a spot in the White House. But four years later, New Jersey voters decided against sending Bush back to Washington for a second term. Bill Clinton edged out Bush in New Jersey in 1992, grabbing nearly 43 percent of the state’s vote. Bush lost the state with more than 40 percent of the vote. Since then New Jersey has voted for the Democratic presidential candidate in every election cycle. Here’s a breakdown of New Jersey’s presidential voting history: Presidential Election Year Democratic Votes Republican Votes 2008: Obama vs. McCain 2,215,422 1,613,207 2004: Kerry vs. Bush 1,911,430 1,670,003 2000: Gore vs. Bush 1,788,850 1,284,173 1996: Clinton vs. Dole 1,652,361 1,103,099 1992: Clinton vs. Bush 1,436,206 1,356,865 1988: Dukakis vs. Bush 1,320,352 1,743,192 1984: Mondale vs. Reagan 1,261,323 1,933,630 1980: Carter vs. Reagan 1,147,364 1,546,557 1976: Carter vs. Ford 1,444,653 1,509,688 1972: McGovern vs. Nixon 1,102,211 1,845,502 1968: Humphrey vs. Nixon 1,264,206 1,325,467 1964: Johnson vs. Goldwater 1,867,671 963,843 1960: Kennedy vs. Nixon 1,385,415 1,363,324 Our ruling Christie said "a Republican hasn't won [an election] for a presidency in New Jersey since 1988." When Bush took on Dukakis in 1988, a majority of New Jersey voters cast a ballot for the Republican candidate, helping send Bush to the White House. But four years later, the tide turned in New Jersey and the state has voted Democratic in every presidential election since. We rate this claim True. To comment on this ruling, go to NJ.com. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/cc018ecd-6033-4be2-8a2c-fff8a1cb58ce

Chris Christie

2012-08-15T07:30:00

2012-08-07

['New_Jersey', 'Republican_Party_(United_States)']

tron-01433

Hershey moving to Mexico?

truth!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/hershey/

food

Hershey moving to Mexico?

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

pomt-04893

Says U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV passed "only one bill" in seven years.

mostly true

/florida/statements/2012/aug/06/american-bridge-21st-century/group-says-connie-mack-has-passed-only-one-bill-co/

Woody Allen once said 80 percent of success is showing up. And that’s the point American Bridge 21st Century, a Democratic super PAC, makes in a farcical online video that criticizes U.S. Rep. Connie Mack IV for a shabby attendance record, and for not getting much done. "Connie Mack: Only one bill passed in seven years," says the video, which features a bummed out Florida family (presumably actors) unable to find Mack in Washington. "You think we’ll see him next time, pa?" says a disappointed child. "Connie Mack: If he doesn’t show up for work now, why elect him senator?" the video continues. Mack’s missed votes have made news for several months as he prepares for a likely November face-off with U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson. PolitiFact found that although he’s not the most representative representative (sorry!), his attendance record is better than opponents have claimed. But did Mack really pass just one bill since he was elected in 2005? Here comes the fact-check. Mack sponsored only one bill -- during the 110th Congress in 2007-08 -- that was signed into law, according to the Library of Congress. The measure corrected a faulty map of Florida’s Coastal Barrier Resources System, which protects coastal landforms that conserve wildlife. The bill was passed "under suspension," which means it was so noncontroversial Congress didn’t put it through committee for vetting. Most of the other 46 bills Mack sponsored died in committee. "In this case, he didn’t have to jump through the normal hoops," said Norm Ornstein, a congressional expert and a resident scholar at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "That may be very nice for Florida, but it’s certainly not major policy." Yet, the numbers game often isn’t a fair assessment of legislators’ efficacy, Ornstein said. Some of history’s best lawmakers rarely saw their names attached to legislation. "It’s not just the number, it’s the quality. You could pass a whole bunch of bills that would be renaming post offices, commemorative resolutions, etcetera," Ornstein said. That’s one reason why accusations about attendance and effectiveness, which surface often in elections, are usually ripe for rebuttal. In fact, the video itself is a parody of one put together by former Gov. Charlie Crist when he ran for governor in 2006 against then-U.S. Rep. Jim Davis. "This ad used the same standard the Crist campaign used for the Davis ad," said American Bridge spokesman Matt Thornton. "There was some discussion in the media, but the consensus was that the ad was a fair." The American Bridge video doesn’t mention that Mack co-sponsored 700 bills since 2005, about 50 of which passed. But co-sponsorship is not a good measure of efficacy, Thornton said, because bills often have hundreds of sponsors who sign on for purely political reasons. "Anyone can co-sponsor anything," he added. Case in point: Mack was one of 308 cosponsors for a measure by Jacksonville Democratic Rep. Corrine Brown that awarded the congressional gold medal to the Montford Point Marines, a nonprofit veterans group. Brown’s office said that, while Mack was kind enough to sign on to the measure, he didn’t help move it through Congress. Still, it’s possible Mack was instrumental in some of the bills he cosponsored. And he also might have passed some of his proposals by tacking them on to other bills as amendments. Both scenarios are difficult to track, and Mack campaign spokesman David James gave vague responses to questions intended to pin down the congressman’s specific accomplishments. Mack’s record only proves that he focuses on repealing bad bills rather than passing new ones, James said. "Connie has run successfully four times for the Congress representing Southwest Florida on the platform of reducing government, not growing it," James wrote in an email. Also, he said, Mack has a plan to balance the budget -- known as the Penny Plan -- that has attracted support in Congress. Our ruling American Bridge is right to say Mack only passed one bill in seven years. However, they leave out that Mack cosponsored about 50 bills that were written into law and didn’t consider that some of his bills may have passed as amendments. Also, it's important to note that the number of Mack bills that became law is only one measure of his overall record -- and one that can be misleading when viewed in isolation. We rate the claim Mostly True.

American Bridge 21st Century

2012-08-06T12:09:22

2012-08-06

['United_States']

pomt-13035

On Donald Trump’s plan to cut federal funding to sanctuary cities, "because of a decision by the Supreme Court, no president's in a position to cut off funding across the board. It has to be very specific to the matter at hand."

mostly true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/dec/01/bill-de-blasio/new-york-city-mayor-says-president-cant-defund-san/

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio isn’t backing away from policies that protect immigrants living illegally in the country, even if that means cuts to his city’s budget. President-elect Donald Trump has said he will block federal funds to cities with policies or laws that limit their assistance to immigration authorities. New York is among jurisdictions considered a "sanctuary city." The Democratic mayor was asked on WNYC’s The Brian Lehrer Show how funding would be affected if Trump follows through on his promise. "I think the first thing is to recognize that from what I know so far because of a decision by the Supreme Court, no president's in a position to cut off funding across the board. It has to be very specific to the matter at hand," de Blasio said. "If we disagree in one particular policy area, there may be opportunities for the federal government to say, ‘well we are not going to fund you in that policy area,’ but not across the board." As other mayors across the country stand behind their immigrant-friendly policies, we wondered about de Blasio’s comment on how much is at stake. Can funding be restrained in certain areas but not "across the board," as de Blasio said? A key Supreme Court case The mayor’s press office told us he was referring to the 1987 landmark case South Dakota vs. Dole, which the mayor’s press office concluded "that federal conditions have to be reasonable and related to the programs they are attached to." South Dakota vs. Dole examined whether Congress exceeded its spending powers and violated the 21st Amendment (allowing states to regulate alcohol) by setting conditions for states to receive federal highway funds. Congress in 1984 enacted legislation that allowed the secretary of the Transportation Department to withhold 5 percent of federal highway funds from states where the minimum drinking age was below 21. South Dakota allowed 19-year-olds to buy alcohol. In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court determined that Congress within constitutional bounds "acted indirectly under its spending power to encourage uniformity in the states' drinking ages." The court also said spending power must be in pursuit of "the general welfare." Conditions set by Congress for the disbursement of funds must also be unambiguous, related to the national project or program, not lead to unconstitutional actions and not be coercive, the court affirmed. Constitutional law experts told us de Blasio’s comment is generally sound, but noted that the Dole case is specifically about congressional spending power, not presidential authority. "If Trump was referring to the possibility of congressional legislation that would make continued funding contingent on cooperation with federal immigration policy, then we have a possible Dole situation," said Christopher W. Schmidt, a law professor and co-director of the Institute on the Supreme Court of the United States at Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology. Imposing across-the-board spending cuts for "sanctuary cities" would run afoul with at least one of the criteria set in the 1987 Supreme Court case — that conditions on spending be related to the national program that Congress is seeking to advance, said Franita Tolson, a professor at Florida State University College of Law. For instance, if the federal government gives New York money for mass transit, and New York doesn't want to participate in a federal initiative for education, the federal government can't in turn threaten the mass transit funds, said Richard Primus, a law professor at the University of Michigan. Trump’s administration "can’t cut off any federal grants to sanctuary cities unless it can show that those grants were clearly conditioned on cooperation with federal deportation policies," Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote in an opinion piece published by the Washington Post. Conditions for funds also cannot be so great that the threat of losing federal money amounts to coercion, Primus said. Scholars pointed to the 2012 Supreme Court case National Federation of Independent Business vs. Sebelius, in which seven of the nine justices said it would be unconstitutionally coercive for Congress to withdraw Medicaid funds from states refusing to participate in the Medicaid expansion under the Affordable Care Act. "One might argue that the larger the amount of money at stake (or the ‘broader’ the threatened cut), the more coercive the condition, but there are other factors to be taken into account as well," said Lana Ulrich, associate in-house counsel at the National Constitution Center. In the case of sanctuary cities, spending power might be interpreted differently, Ulrich said. At issue might be the extent to which Congress may condition grants or whether Congress has the discretion to withhold funds for cities that are not in compliance with federal law," Ulrich said. Trump has not outlined extended details on his sanctuary city proposal, but he said that cities that refuse to assist federal authorities "will not receive taxpayer dollars." Our ruling In a discussion about Trump’s plans to cut federal funding to sanctuary cities, de Blasio said, "because of a decision by the Supreme Court, no president's in a position to cut off funding across the board. It has to be very specific to the matter at hand." It’s not as settled by law as de Blasio makes it sound, but experts say generally that the mayor is correct. The Supreme Court, in South Dakota vs. Dole, concluded that Congress could not coerce local governments to act based on the threat of withholding federal funds. Also, any funds that are withheld must be germane to the reason they are being withheld. The court ruling dealt with Congress, however, and not the executive, and there is ambiguity about both what tactic Trump might pursue and the legal precedence behind it. De Blasio's statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information. We rate de Blasio’s claim Mostly True.https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3dd2f041-14be-448f-b001-103b6ad8d56a

Bill de Blasio

2016-12-01T10:44:52

2016-11-18

['None']

tron-01317

NASA Finds Antarctica is Gaining Ice, Not Losing Ice

truth!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/nasa-finds-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-not-losing-ice/

environment

NASA Finds Antarctica is Gaining Ice, Not Losing Ice

Nov 18, 2015

['None']

tron-01442

Arby’s Franchise Owner Wins Approval for Whites-Only Restaurant

fiction! & satire!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/arbys-white-only/

food

Arby’s Franchise Owner Wins Approval for Whites-Only Restaurant

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

bove-00087

Did Rahul Gandhi Say SC/ST Act Has Been Scrapped? A FactCheck

none

https://www.boomlive.in/did-rahul-gandhi-say-sc-st-act-has-been-scrapped-a-factcheck/

Did Rahul Gandhi Say SC/ST Act Has Been Scrapped? A FactCheck

Apr 05 2018 7:58 pm, Last Updated: Apr 09 2018 11:43 am

['None']

snes-02046

Americans can use their birth certificates to access secret "strawman" funds.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/birth-certificates-financial-accounts/

Fraud & Scams

Arturo Garcia

Can U.S. Birth Certificates Unlock Hidden ‘Strawman’ Financial Accounts?

17 January 2017

['None']

pomt-13580

Milwaukee police use deadly force at a rate that is "among the lowest" in the country.

half-true

/wisconsin/statements/2016/aug/19/edward-flynn/milwaukee-police-rarely-use-deadly-force/

The day after a sniper killed five Dallas police officers, Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn held a news conference to share his reaction and to comment on policing in his city. He made an important claim that would become even more significant in the weeks to come. The chief stated: "We stand ready to be judged by the standards of our own training, our own selection criteria, our own highly limited use of deadly force -- among the lowest rates in the country -- as well as the remarkable examples, time after time, when police officers in this city are justified in the use of deadly force, but do not use it." Flynn made the statement on July 8, 2016. Five weeks later, on Aug. 13, one of his officers fatally shot an armed man during a foot chase in an incident that touched off two days of violence that made national news. (It was the third such fatality in Milwaukee in 2016.) So, do Milwaukee police use deadly force at a rate that is among the lowest in the country? It’s a broad statement that is supported by national data for 2015. But there simply isn’t national data to compare cities for prior years. Data is limited To back the chief’s statement, a Milwaukee police spokesman directed us to a fatal police shootings database for 2015 created by the Washington Post. Criminologists regard it as the best current source of information on fatal shootings committed by police. But since 2015 is the only full year of data available, it is a "snapshot of one year," University of Missouri-St. Louis criminologist David Klinger told us. Nationwide, according to the Post, there were 990 people shot and killed by police around the country in 2015 (as well as nearly 600 so far in 2016). A quick breakdown of the 2015 figures: 50 percent of the people killed were white and 26% were black. In 74 percent of the cases, there was some type of an attack in progress when police fired the fatal shots. There were signs of mental illness in 25 percent of the cases. Eleven of the 2015 fatal shootings occurred in Wisconsin, but just one in Milwaukee. Tyrone Ryerson Lawrence, a 45-year-old black man, was shot inside a home. He refused to drop a knife and an officer shot him, fearing that Lawrence would stab his wife, according to police. There’s no question that one is a low number -- particularly for a city with a population of 600,000. The bigger picture But Flynn made a general claim about Milwaukee having a low rate in the use of deadly force, not a claim about a single year. And numbers can vary relatively significantly in a given year. In 2013, for example, Milwaukee police fatally shot four people. We found that based on population, some cities had a much lower rate than Milwaukee that year: San Francisco police killed one person, while the number was three in Austin, Texas (which serves 842,000 people), San Jose, Calif. (982,000), and Las Vegas (nearly 1.5 million). To be sure, the raw numbers haven’t ranged widely in Milwaukee -- 2012 -- 1; 2013 -- 4; 2014 -- 2; 2015 -- 1. But without national figures for anything but 2015, we don’t know how Milwaukee’s rate compares. Our rating Flynn said Milwaukee police use deadly force at a rate that is "among the lowest" in the country. Flynn bases his claim on the best data currently available, which show Milwaukee police killed one person in 2015. But 2015 is the only full year for which data are available on a national level; we simply don’t know how Milwaukee’s rate would compare in prior years. Our definition of Half True is a statement that is partially accurate but leaves out important information. That fits here. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/3cbfca12-12cf-483a-925a-473d75049360

Edward Flynn

2016-08-19T09:00:00

2016-07-08

['None']

vogo-00124

Statement: “Last 28 days hotel occupancy down 4.8% due to no advertising. San Diego ads would have started Feb. (11),” Kerri Kapich, one of the top executives at the San Diego Tourism Authority, wrote in a March 25 tweet.

determination: misleading

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/fewer-bodies-in-beds-fact-check/

Analysis: Tourism officials say a fight with Mayor Bob Filner over marketing dollars is crippling the region’s ability to draw visitors.

Fewer Bodies in Beds: Fact Check

March 29, 2013

['San_Diego']

pomt-06352

Says that under his tax plan, "no matter where you are in the stratosphere, you're going to be getting a tax cut."

false

/texas/statements/2011/nov/07/rick-perry/rick-perry-says-under-his-tax-plan-everyone-will-b/

Talking up his flat-tax plan, Texas Gov. Rick Perry told Neil Cavuto of the Fox News Channel that every taxpayer should be happy because of its simplicity. Plus, he said, it’s "a tax cut for every group out there. No matter where you are in the stratosphere, you're going to be getting a tax cut." Everyone? Perry, seeking the Republican presidential nomination, spoke to Cavuto on Oct. 25, 2011, the day he’d announced he wanted to offer Americans the choice of continuing to pay taxes under the existing progressive income tax or shifting to a 20-percent flat tax with a few wrinkles. For people who opt for the flat tax, his plan calls for a standard deduction of $12,500 per individual and dependent in a household and preserves deductions for mortgage interest, state and local taxes and charitable donations. Perry also proposes to eliminate taxes on estates, certain dividends and capital gains, as well as Social Security benefits. He also wants to cut the corporate tax rate to 20 percent. His speech outlining his plan included a claim less sweeping than what he later told Cavuto: "Taxes will be cut across all income groups in America." When we inquired with his campaign, spokeswoman Catherine Frazier said an Oct. 31, 2011, analysis by the Tax Policy Center, a joint effort by the Urban Institute and the Brookings Institution, supports the conclusion that, compared to current law, "Americans of all income groups are better off under the governor's tax plan." She said in another email response: "Americans across every income group will see a tax cut." We’d already consulted the center’s analysis in checking MSNBC commentator Rachel Maddow’s claim that under Perry’s plan, the rich would get huge tax cuts while everyone else would see big tax increases. We rated that Mostly False. Rich taxpayers would see sizable cuts, the center’s analysis indicates, but some others -- even low-income taxpayers -- would get tax cuts. Also, no one would be forced into an increase because everyone could continue under the current system. In a telephone interview, the center’s analyst, Roberton Williams, said the wealthy would enjoy big tax cuts under Perry’s plan because the 20 percent income-tax rate would require considerably less from them than the current maximum tax rate of 35 percent. Also, he noted, exempting capital gains and dividends from the income tax would help wealthier taxpayers. Capital gains and dividend income are currently subject to rates of up to 15 percent. "These are substantial cuts," he said. Those results aside, he said, "it is definitely not the case that everyone will get a tax cut." The center’s analysis says that compared to current law, Perry’s plan would deliver a tax cut in 2015 of an average $267 to about 25 percent of the nation’s poorest 20 percent of households, with annual earnings up to $19,342. This means three in four of households in this earnings group would not get cuts. About 45 percent of the next-poorest quintile of households, earning up to $39,862, would get a cut averaging $695, the analysis says. This means 55 percent would not get cuts. Most Americans earning more would get tax cuts, the analysis suggests. Compared to current law, Williams said, Americans earning more would fare better under Perry’s plan. At least three in four households earning $39,863 to $69,074 would experience a tax cut, averaging $1,722, with 94 percent or more earning $69,075 to $119,546 seeing cuts averaging $3,872, according to the center’s analysis. The very wealthiest 0.1 percent of households, earning more than $2.87 million a year, would get average tax cuts of more than $1.9 million, the analysis says. Williams said the center’s definition of current law presumes that tax cuts put in place since 2001 under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama will expire after next year, which will happen unless lawmakers intervene. Frazier told us the Perry plan presumes current tax laws would remain in place until the Perry plan passes into law. An Oct. 31, 2011, Wall Street Journal news article, states the presumption that the tax reductions put in place will expire means that under Perry’s approach, "a lot of people would actually face a tax increase compared to current tax levels." Frazier, Perry’s spokeswoman, replied to our inquiry about the center’s analysis indicating lower-income Americans would not get a tax cut by echoing Perry’s announcement of his plan: "Americans in every income group will receive a tax cut." True, some households at each quintile of earnings -- from the poorest to richest -- would get tax cuts under Perry’s plan, which promises tax cuts to the vast majority of households annually earning $39,863 or more. But it’s not the case that no matter where you are, you're going to be getting a tax cut. We rate Perry's statement False.

Rick Perry

2011-11-07T06:00:00

2011-10-25

['None']

pose-01059

My goal is for each neighborhood or area to have its own vibe, to be its own destination. Visually appealing signage at neighborhood entrances and wayfaring signage in populated areas is an easy first step and a resource for both residents and visitors.

promise kept

https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/krise-o-meter/promise/1141/install-signage-neighborhood-entrances-and-wayfari/

krise-o-meter

Rick Kriseman

Install signage at neighborhood entrances and wayfaring signage in populated areas

2013-12-31T12:18:33

['None']

pomt-03162

Salaries for URI faculty are second to last among New England land grant universities and in lowest 20 percent of major U.S. research institutions

half-true

/rhode-island/statements/2013/sep/07/frank-annunziato/uri-faculty-union-director-frank-annunziato-says-p/

For years, officials at the University of Rhode Island have complained that the state has underfunded the university, leaving academic salaries stagnant and forcing excessive tuition hikes. Frank R. Annunziato, executive director of the URI chapter of the American Association of University Professors, touched on the former issue in an interview with The Providence Journal in August. "If you look at the other land grant universities in New England, we are last [in faculty salary] except for the University of Maine in Orono," he said. "Our national organization does a survey every year. Of all the major research institutions, we are in the lowest quintile (20 percent) across the board. It’s a dire situation here." In effect, Annunziato doubled down on something URI president David Dooley had said. In April 2012 PolitiFact Rhode Island ruled True on Dooley’s statement that URI salaries on average were second to last among major public universities in New England. The source of the data is the same this time as it was then: an authoritative annual survey by the AAUP made public in its magazine, Academe. AAUP gets its information by surveying the leadership of the institutions, not its member chapters. The most recent survey, for the 2012-13 fiscal year and published in the March-April issue of Academe, broke down the average full-time salaries by position for 1,251 U.S. institutions of higher education. The positions include full, associate and assistant professors, and, for institutions that have the position, instructor. When we broached the subject to Annunziato, he said that he was talking about averages for individual academic ranks as well as across ranks. And he said he was merely quoting Dooley from our previous fact-check on university salaries. We’ll break Annunziato’s statement into two parts. First, is it still correct -- about 1½ years after Dooley’s representation -- to say URI salaries on average are second to last among public land grant universities in New England? The short answer is yes. URI is one of six public land grant universities in New England. For those states with multiple campuses and varying salaries for each, salaries at the campus where faculty is the highest paid were used for comparison. The AAUP database for 2012-13 shows URI’s salaries at each teaching level are lower than all the other New England institutions except for the University of Maine. That also holds true for the average salary for all ranks combined. At URI, according to the AAUP, full professors are paid an average of $105,100; associate professors, $78,700; assistant professors, $67,400; and instructors, $61,400. For all ranks, the average salary is $83,000. The highest salaries are paid at the University of Connecticut: $136,800 for full professor, $91,900 for associate professor, $73,900 for assistant, $67,900 for instructor, and for all ranks, an average of $101,400. (We should note that even though Annunziato relies on the AAUP data to make his argument that pay at URI is too low, he complains that the AAUP overstates average pay at URI because its survey omits "lecturer" -- the university’s lowest-ranking teaching position.) As for the second half of Annunziato’s statement, he said that he derived his conclusion that URI’s salaries ranked in the bottom 20 percent among major research institutions from the AAUP data. Annunziato said that when he mentions "major research institutions," he is referring to so-called Category I institutions in the AAUP data. John W. Curtis, national AAUP director of research and public policy, told us that Category I includes major research institutions but is "quite a bit broader than that." The AAUP categorizes universities according to the number and variety of Ph.D.s the universities award. Annunziato also acknowledged that he cited all Category I institutions, including public and private, for his comparison. In effect, that would broaden the pay gap because private institutions generally pay better than public ones. When we looked at the data, we found that URI actually is in the 20 percent to 40 percent range in average salary in Category I institutions -- not, as Annunziato contends, the lowest 20 percent. The AAUP’s Curtis confirmed our finding. Admitted Annunziato, "I will stand corrected." Our ruling Frank Annunziato said salaries for URI faculty are second to last among New England land grant universities and in the lowest 20 percent of major U.S. research institutions. He is right on the first point and wrong on the second. The judges rule Half True. (Editor’s note: In the interest of full disclosure, the author’s wife is a URI faculty member.)

Frank Annunziato

2013-09-07T00:01:00

2013-08-06

['United_States', 'New_England']

goop-02264

Kris Jenner Ordering Kendall Jenner, Kourtney Kardashian To Get Pregnant?

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/kris-jenner-pregnant-kendall-kourtney-kardashian-babies/

Shari Weiss

Kris Jenner Ordering Kendall Jenner, Kourtney Kardashian To Get Pregnant?

10:33 am, November 2, 2017

['Kendall_Jenner', 'Kris_Jenner']

pomt-15034

The Benghazi probe is "the longest-running congressional investigation ever."

false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/02/hillary-clinton/clinton-campaign-benghazi-probe-congress-longest-i/

Critics of the House of Representatives’ Benghazi investigation have recently begun to make a strong claim -- that it is officially the longest congressional investigation in history. The Select Committee on Benghazi came into existence in May 2014, charged with investigating the 2012 terrorist attack on a U.S. diplomatic compound in the Libyan city that left four Americans dead. Costing $4.5 million so far, with no final report in sight, critics see the committee as a waste of taxpayer dollars and a partisan witch hunt aimed at Democratic presidential candidate and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Clinton is slated to testify before the committee later in October. In recent days, the claim that this is the longest-running investigation ever has gone somewhat viral. We saw it in The Hill, Salon, The New York Times, Esquire, MSNBC, ABC News and, notably, a Twitter account belonging to Clinton’s campaign. The Briefing -- an arm of the Clinton campaign that aims to counter what it considers misinformation in the public sphere -- tweeted on Sept. 30 from its account: "It's the longest-running congressional investigation ever. It's cost taxpayers $4 million. And what's it about?" Most outlets reporting this factoid have measured the length of the Benghazi investigation by how long the select committee has been in existence -- 72 weeks, or roughly 17 months. They note in particular that this is now longer than the Watergate investigation in the 1970s -- that committee existed for about 16 months -- and also longer than probes into Pearl Harbor and Hurricane Katrina. When we contacted the Clinton campaign, they pointed to some of those news reports as evidence. However, we found numerous examples of congressional committee investigations that have lasted much longer than the Benghazi panel's 17 months. Here are some examples, covering the period from when the investigation was launched to when a final report was issued: • House Select Committee on Assassinations, 30 months: In September 1976, the House established this committee to investigate the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy and civil rights leader Martin Luther King Jr., as well as the government's response. The committee issued its report January 1979. • Senate Select Committee on Improper Activities in Labor-Management Relations, 38 months: This committee looked into racketeering in the labor industry from January 1957 to March 1960. • Joint Committee on the Conduct of the War, 40 months: This committee had a broad charge to investigate the conduct of the Civil War, starting December 1861 and producing a final report May 1865. • Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program, 90 months: This committee examined questions about the awarding of defense contracts during World War II, running from 1941 to 1948. This panel brought national attention to a previously obscure Democratic senator, Harry Truman. These four investigations were -- like the one on Benghazi -- conducted by a special committee dedicated solely to that investigation. We found other investigations that also lasted longer than Benghazi but were conducted by permanent committees rather than special panels. For example: The Senate’s permanent government affairs committee spent nearly 30 months investigating the 2007-08 financial crisis. The House ethics committee spent about two years -- from 2008 to 2010 -- looking into allegations of misconduct by Rep. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y. And a former permanent Senate panel, the Committee on Public Lands, spent more than two years, from 1922-24, investigating the infamous Teapot Dome scandal. The difference between select (or special) committees and permanent committees is important, because the latter have a variety of responsibilities that can affect how long it takes them to finish a single investigation, said Joshua Huder, a senior fellow at Georgetown University’s Government Affairs Institute and an expert in congressional procedure. There’s also some room for disagreement over when an investigation actually starts and ends, said Douglas Kriner, a Boston University political science professor writing a book on congressional oversight. For example, the 1940s National Defense Program committee investigation could have several possible end dates, including the committee’s official closing in 1948 or the date that its first chair, Truman, was elevated to vice president in 1944. It’s also worth noting that before the Benghazi committee started the official probe, Congress held a variety of hearings on the attacks. But this is the case for many of these investigations -- and even if you take the questionable step of starting the clock with some of the earlier congressional Benghazi investigations, several probes through history still lasted longer than the ones on Benghazi. "On most metrics, reasonable people can agree that other investigations have been longer than (Benghazi)," Kriner said. Our ruling Clinton’s campaign said the Benghazi probe is "the longest-running congressional investigation ever." The clearest way to measure this is to look at when a special congressional committee dedicated to a specific investigation officially began and ended. By this measure, this claim is wrong. While the Benghazi investigation has lasted about 17 months, we found other investigations that lasted 30, 40 and even 90 months. And the number of longer investigations only goes up once probes by permanent committees are included. We rate the claim False.

Hillary Clinton

2015-10-02T10:00:00

2015-09-30

['None']

wast-00198

Hillary Clinton doesn\'t believe in your right to keep a gun at home for self-defense.

4 pinnochios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2016/08/15/the-nras-false-claim-that-hillary-clinton-doesnt-believe-americans-can-keep-guns-at-home/

National Rifle Association

Glenn Kessler

The NRA's false claim that Hillary Clinton doesn't believe Americans can keep guns at home

August 15, 2016

['None']

afck-00100

“Heart disease is the leading cause of death in South Africa”

incorrect

https://africacheck.org/reports/no-heart-disease-is-not-sas-leading-cause-of-death-as-health24-tweeted/

No – heart disease is not SA’s leading cause of death, as Health24 tweeted

2017-09-05 11:06

['None']

pomt-08604

It's "not true" that since he's been the president, executions in Iran have increased by four times.

false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/sep/23/mahmoud-ahmadinejad/iranian-president-mahmoud-ahmadinejad-denies-execu/

In an interview on ABC's This Week, host Christiane Amanpour asked Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad if he was aware that "since you've been the President executions in Iran have increased by four times." "That is not true at all," Ahmadinejad responded. "Not at all. Not at all." "So you deny that?" Amanpour asked, noting that the statistic came from independent human rights groups. "How do they know?" Ahmadinejad said. "They haven't come to Iran." The Iranian government doesn't keep statistics on executions. Or, at least, it doesn't make them public. But a couple of human rights groups outside Iran keep tallies on executions based largely on official or "semi-official" news accounts in Iran. Amnesty International, which opposes the death penalty, issues an annual report on executions in Iran and elsewhere around the world. According to Amnesty International's tally, there were at least 94 people executed in Iran in 2005, including at least eight aged under 18 at the time of the crime. Ahmadinejad became president in August of that year. That same year, 94 percent of all known executions took place in China, Iran, Saudi Arabia and the U.S. (which had 60), the report states. In contrast, Amnesty International recorded at least 388 executions in Iran in 2009 (the U.S. had 52). The report states, "the death penalty continued to be applied in political cases, in which individuals are commonly accused of 'enmity against God.'" In addition, the report states, a "sharp increase in the rate of executions was registered in the eight-week period between the presidential election on 12 June and the inauguration of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad for a second term as president on 5 August. Many of those executed were convicted in flawed legal proceedings, some after having made televised 'confessions.'" So that's where Amanpour got her fourfold estimate (94 in 2005 when Ahmadinejad was elected; and 388 in 2009). Without official government statistics, where does Amnesty International get its data? "Information about the vast majority of these executions comes from official Iranian sources: newspapers and provincial judiciary websites," said Ann Harrison, a researcher at Amnesty International in London, in an e-mail exchange with PolitiFact. "Very few come from other sources such as local human rights groups or family members of those executed. However, we believe that the true number of executions is likely to be higher, as the authorities do not publish official statistics on their use of the death penalty, and we always later receive reports of other executions, which were not known about at the time." Amnesty International isn't the only human rights group that keeps tabs on executions in Iran. Since 2001, the Abdorrahman Boroumand Foundation, a group that promotes human rights and democracy in Iran, has scoured 50 to 60 newspapers, websites and blogs on a daily basis looking for information on executions. Most of the sites are "official or semi-official state news agencies and prison websites," said Roya Boroumand, executive director and co-founder of the foundation. The foundation documented 127 executions in 2004 (the year before Ahmadinejad took office); 65 in 2005; 132 in 2006; 468 in 2007;381 in 2008; and 399 in 2009. "I can't swear to you that's an exact number," Boroumand said. "This is more or less what's reported." The foundation keeps detailed and well-sourced databases to substantiate their figures. Boroumand shared a spreadsheet for 2007, as an example. The spreadsheet lists the names of those executed, their crimes (most were for drug trafficking, murder or sex crimes), and the source of the information (such as the state news agency or a police office website). Boroumand warned not to assume the charges listed are accurate, however, as Iranian authorities do not allow the independent investigation and monitoring of cases in which the death penalty is enforced. While the totals are not exact, she said, they have used the same method of data collection every year. Their tally shows executions "have increased several times in recent years," Boroumand said. But they are not the highest number in modern history, by any means. In 1990, for example, there were about 900 executions, she said. But the number of executions dropped off in the late 1990s and early 2000s before increasing again the last several years, she said. Boroumand attributes the rise to "a more military-oriented government...So they are more arrogant." The United Nations does not track the exact number of executions in Iran, but an October 2008 report notes that the U.N.'s Human Rights Committee "expressed grave concern over the extremely high number of death sentences, many resulting from trials in which the guarantees of due process of law had not been properly applied." The report also says the "continuing high incidence of executions remains an ongoing concern, with a sudden surge of executions reported in recent months, which the authorities argue are part of efforts to combat drug trafficking." The report notes, for example, that on July 27, 2008, there were reportedly 29 executions, 18 for drug-related offenses. We asked Gary Sick, a senior research scholar at Columbia's School of International and Public Affairs who served on the National Security Council under Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan, what he thought of Ahmadinejad's denial of rising executions under his presidency. "Ahmadinejad doesn't like to be reminded Iran is one of the leading countries in the world in terms of executions," Sick said. "And to avoid the issue, he lies about it." Again, the Iranian government does not publicly release statistics on executions, but we think the human rights reports provide convincing evidence that executions in Iran have risen dramatically during Ahmadinejad's presidency. The reports are meticulously documented, and are mostly sourced to government websites and government news agencies within Iran that have reported specific cases. And, while even the human rights groups acknowledge their numbers are imprecise (and likely under-reported), the same method for gathering the data has been used for years. That seems the best way, under the circumstances, to establish a trend. And so we rule that Ahmadinejad's denial of an increase in executions during his presidency is False.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad

2010-09-23T11:31:38

2010-09-19

['Iran']

vees-00285

NO, the whole world is NOT talking about Duterte’s compassion for overseas Filipino workers

none

http://verafiles.org/articles/week-fake-news-no-whole-world-not-talking-about-dutertes-com

Duterte,fake news,Joanna Demafelis

THIS WEEK IN FAKE NEWS: NO, the whole world is NOT talking about Duterte’s compassion for overseas Filipino workers

March 02, 2018

['None']

pomt-11688

(Fritz) Kaegi managed a fund that invested nearly $30 million in private prisons.

mostly false

/illinois/statements/2017/dec/29/joe-berrios/joe-berrios-reaches-too-far-attack-fritz-kaegi/

In a recent cable TV ad, Cook County Assessor Joseph Berrios accused his Democratic primary opponent, Fritz Kaegi, of profiting from the private prison industry during his tenure as an investment analyst at Columbia Wanger Asset Management. "Kaegi personally managed a fund that invested nearly $30 million in private prisons," the ad stated. "Prisons where women refused food to protest abusive guards, immigrant children as young as 5 were held and detainees died suspiciously. But Kaegi only saw profits." Berrios also aired a similarly worded radio ad. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com The for-profit prison industry has long been the focus of animus for Democrats nationally, and the very concept of private prisons has been a source of controversy generally, so connecting Kaegi to it could score political points for Berrios. Investment funds like those managed by Kaegi contain dozens of stocks covering a diverse array of industries. We took a look to see if private prisons were in the portfolio on Kaegi’s watch. Timeline trouble Kaegi spent 13 years as an investment manager at Columbia Wanger Asset Management, where he oversaw the Columbia Acorn Fund with two other analysts. He gave up management duties of the fund and left Columbia Wanger on March 13 to begin his campaign. Our first call was to the Berrios campaign to find out the basis for the ad’s allegation. Campaign spokeswoman Monica Trevino provided a quarterly Securities and Exchange Commission filing from March 31 that showed the Columbia Acorn Fund contained 926,513 shares in CoreCivic, a Nashville-based company that manages 91 prisons and related facilities across the country. The shares are valued at $29,111,038, according to the filing. Trevino also sent an amendment to the Columbia Acorn prospectus dated March 13 that showed Kaegi’s oversight of the fund would end on March 14. Because the quarterly report includes time when Kaegi was one of three managers of the fund, he’s connected to the CoreCivic investment, Trevino said. "Kaegi has not (provided) any definitive evidence that when the investment was made he wasn’t there," Trevino said in an email. Virtual paper trail Interestingly, Kaegi provided the same March 13 document in defending himself. He said it shows he was not active in the fund’s management after that date and that CoreCivic and other stocks were added to the portfolio between March 14 and March 31. Kaegi explained he ran the fund with two other managers — lead portfolio manager Matthew A. Litfin and co-manager P. Zachary Egan — and no investments were made without agreement from all three. "If one person was against buying, you didn’t buy," Kaegi said. Kaegi consistently had blocked investment in CoreCivic and a few other stocks, but that ended when he stepped down as manager on March 13, he said. Neither Litfin nor Egan responded to our requests for comment. "I always thought these were bad companies" that "try to dress themselves up as real estate companies," said Kaegi, adding that he believes changing attitudes on mass incarceration make private prison stocks a risky investment. That’s in addition to ethical concerns over privatizing correctional facilities, he said. In a press release issued shortly after Berrios’ ad appeared, Kaegi’s campaign provided links to all of the fund’s quarterly reports from 2015 and 2016, none of which show CoreCivic (or Corrections Corporation of America, as it previously had been known) among its holdings. Kaegi also produced a summary from Feb. 28, 2017 — just two weeks before his management ended — that does not show CoreCivic among Columbia Acorn Fund’s holdings. "This is just about the most controversial stock you can imagine," Kaegi said. "Why on earth would I do that when I’m about to step down to run for this office?" A comparison of the Feb. 28 summary and the March 31 quarterly report shows several stocks — Bioverativ, Blackline, Brunswick Corp., Copart, CoreCivic, Credit Acceptance Corp., Pool Corp., Q2, Tractor Supply and TransUnion — that were added after Feb. 28. Kaegi campaign spokesman DeRondal Bevly said TransUnion was the only stock that was added while Kaegi still managed the fund. Our ruling Berrios said his primary challenger "managed a fund that invested nearly $30 million in private prisons." Columbia Acorn Fund, of which Fritz Kaegi was one of three managers, reported $29.1 million in stock of the private prison operator CoreCivic on its March 31, 2017, quarterly report. But Kaegi’s active management of the fund ended March 13, as documented in a Securities and Exchange Commission filing. Kaegi said the CoreCivic investment came after he was gone, and points to two years of quarterly reports and a Feb. 28 holdings summary to back his point. We were unable to confirm from Kaegi’s co-managers, but a scenario in which Kaegi during his final two weeks as a fund manager decides to invest in a controversial private prison stock as a last act before challenging an opponent in a Democratic primary in Cook County borders on absurd. Berrios’ statement contains an element of truth — the quarterly report on March 31 shows a $29.1 million investment in CoreCivic. But it ignores the critical fact that Kaegi didn’t manage the fund as of March 14 and that as recently Feb. 28 CoreCivic was not part of the portfolio. We rate it Mostly False. See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com

Joe Berrios

2017-12-29T12:16:36

2017-12-11

['None']

goop-00925

Jennifer Lopez, Alex Rodriguez “Headed For A Split,”

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-lopez-alex-rodriguez-split-false/

Shari Weiss

Jennifer Lopez, Alex Rodriguez NOT “Headed For A Split,” Despite Claim

5:24 pm, May 28, 2018

['Alex_Rodriguez', 'Jennifer_Lopez']

pomt-06431

During my tenure as governor, Wisconsin’s overall tax burden went DOWN.

mostly true

/wisconsin/statements/2011/oct/23/tommy-thompson/thompson-says-wisconsins-tax-burden-went-down-whil/

Battered by some conservatives for supporting tax hikes as Wisconsin governor, Tommy Thompson is fighting back as he launches his U.S. Senate bid. When he announced his candidacy in early October 2011, the Republican signed a pledge to oppose higher income tax rates. Thompson said that over his 14 years as Wisconsin’s chief executive, he "always fought to get the long arm of government out of the pockets of working families." "In all, I cut taxes 91 times," Thompson wrote in a campaign fundraising email on Oct. 4. "And I’m extremely proud of the fact that I saved taxpayers $16 billion through my tax reform initiatives, and during my tenure as governor Wisconsin’s overall tax burden went DOWN." Thompson said he "cut income tax rates not once…not twice…but THREE times! Once we started cutting taxes we didn't stop." We’ll tackle a variety of claims about Thompson’s record on taxes and spending in the weeks and months ahead, but thought we’d start with his overarching statement that during his tenure from 1987 until his departure for the Bush administration in February 2001, "Wisconsin’s overall tax burden went down." That’s a hefty claim. Thompson is pointing to a measure ("tax burden") that goes beyond just the trend in total state and local taxes collected. Those collections roughly doubled during his time as income tax payments soared due to a robust economy for many of those years. "Tax burden" takes those total collections -- including property, income, sales, corporate and other taxes -- and divides them into all personal income earned in the state. It does not reflect what every individual experienced; it’s a composite measure of the composite statewide tax bite, or burden. The "burden" measurement is considered the gold standard for measuring tax impact. On tax burden, Thompson’s campaign pointed us to a 2011 study by the Tax Foundation, a Washington, D.C.-based research organization. It put Wisconsin’s tax burden at 11.7 percent of the state’s personal income in Tommy’s first year, and down to 10.5 percent in his last. That’s a noteworthy drop. For perspective, let’s look at what some studies and measures show. Thompson said the burden went down, but for whom? Most significantly, were there tax increases in the 12 years in between his first and last that added up to a cumulative tax hike? First, a few important statistical notes. The basis of all relevant studies we found is the U.S. Census Bureau’s estimates of state and local tax collections. The Tax Foundation study cited by Thompson tries to adjust the census numbers to account for so-called tax exporting -- taxes on oil in Alaska, for example, are collected there but paid in large part by residents of other states. The group also estimates tax collections in years the census does not do so. Most tax studies we found, including state-by-state comparisons assembled by the nonpartisan Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, stick to the original Census Bureau numbers, citing uncertainties with estimating "tax exporting." The two methods produce numbers that agree on much of what happened under Thompson, with some exceptions we’ll note below. Neither reveal a consistent easing of the tax burden in the Thompson era. Take a look: The Tax Foundation study ranked Wisconsin’s burden the second-highest in the nation in 12 of Thompson’s 14 years -- but the state fell to a No. 7 ranking in his last year, fiscal 2001. The other studies showed some early progress but basically flat at No. 4. Here’s a closer view: Ten years after Thompson took office, the overall tax bite was the the same or virtually identical as in year one, according to both types of studies. But major tax cuts in Thompson’s last budget pushed the tax burden down at the tail end, compared with the first year. In the 12 years in the middle, the tax bite went up four times based on the Tax Foundation accounting, and nine times in various other studies. Income tax burdens -- largely because of major tax cuts under Thompson and state lawmakers in the 1997 and 1999 budgets -- dropped when comparing his first and last years. The burden surged up in most years, but then fell dramatically, settling in to a drop of 2.7 percent compared with his first year. Property tax burdens swung up in the first half of Thompson’s governorship, then began a major, sustained decline thanks in large part to state property tax relief programs and limits on taxes. In the end, that burden was down 5 percent when he left office. National rankings: Wisconsin was a top-10 tax state when Thompson started -- and when he departed. (In the most recent comparison available, Wisconsin’s total tax burden was 13th in most rankings based on the latest census estimates, but the Tax Foundation put it at sixth.) It’s worth noting that "tax burden" includes taxes levied at the local level, not just by the state. But it’s the best guage of a governor’s record because the state has mighty influence over local property taxes through state aid. A final word on the figures. There’s actually a hole in the census data for Thompson’s final fiscal year, July 2000 to July 2001. That’s a potential problem in judging Thompson’s record, because the drop in tax burden comes toward the end of his tenure. But researchers are mostly untroubled, saying the big income tax cut approved under Thompson took effect -- in part -- the year after he left. So Thompson should get some credit for the drop in the tax burden reflected in fiscal 2001-02, when Scott McCallum was governor. "The tax burden fell during (fiscal years) ‘02 and ‘03, the last two years covered by the 2001 budget bill, which was jointly developed by Governors Thompson and McCallum," said John Koskinen, chief economist, Wisconsin Department of Revenue. And don’t forget the Tax Foundation study does cover his last year, by estimating based on the previous year’s census figures. Finally, using the 2001-’02 year as a proxy for Thompson’s final one, we crunched the numbers on his cumulative record -- not just comparing year one to his last year. We found a net drop in the tax burden (9 or 10 percent) over the course of his time, depending on which methodology is used. Our conclusion Thompson told would-be donors to his Senate campaign that he’s "extremely proud" that during his time as governor, "Wisconsin’s overall tax burden went down." The drop in the tax bite came late in the Thompson era, and some particular levies such as income taxes were on a wild roller-coaster ride. Further, data weaknesses prevent a precise judgment of the trends. But Thompson referred specifically to the overall tax burden, a measure that is commonly cited in multiple studies. And based on frequently cited studies, our own calculations and observations by experts, his claim is on target with some clarification. We rate this statement Mostly True.

Tommy Thompson

2011-10-23T09:00:00

2011-10-04

['None']

pomt-01519

In 2012, "Wall Street" gave Scott Brown "more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million."

mostly true

/new-hampshire/statements/2014/sep/19/jeanne-shaheen/jeanne-shaheen-says-wall-street-gave-scott-brown-m/

As the race between Democratic Sen. Jeanne Shaheen and Republican challenger Scott Brown heats up, the attacks are growing more intense. In a recent radio ad, Shaheen accused Brown of being too friendly with Wall Street when serving as a senator from neighboring Massachusetts from 2010 to 2012. Here’s the 60-second ad’s narration: "Wonder why Scott Brown lost re-election in Massachusetts? Well, he was working for Wall Street, not the people. Scott Brown blocked a major financial reform bill until he could water it down and save Wall Street $19 billion. Scott Brown really delivered for Wall Street, said the Boston Globe. Even after the bill passed, news reports show Brown was ‘secretly serving the interests of Wall Street, working behind the scenes to help the big banks, not consumers.’ "Wall Street thanked Scott Brown by giving him more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million. Now, Scott Brown wants New Hampshire to send him to Washington. Wall Street’s once again spending millions to help. Scott Brown says he really cares about New Hampshire. Come on, don’t be fooled. No matter where he lives, Scott Brown will always put Wall Street first. And that’s good for Scott Brown, but not New Hampshire." That’s a lot to chew on. PolitiFact New Hampshire already checked a claim by a pro-Shaheen group that Brown’s actions had saved "big banks $19 billion in taxes," rating it Mostly False. But what about the ad’s claim that "Wall Street" gave him "more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million"? We decided to take a closer look. The Shaheen campaign pointed us to calculations by the Center for Responsive Politics, whose opensecrets.org website tracks a wide variety of campaign-finance data. It’s a trusted source that we’ve used many times in the past. The Shaheen campaign’s $5.3 million figure refers to how much Brown received in the 2012 campaign cycle -- when he lost his seat to Democrat Elizabeth Warren -- from donors categorized as being part of the finance, insurance and real estate sector. Their dollar figure is correct -- as is Brown’s No. 1 ranking among all Senate candidates for donations from that sector -- but Shaheen’s ad stretches a bit when it calls this "Wall Street." Most "finance" firms have a reasonable claim on being part of Wall Street, but a lot of the insurance and real-estate sectors fall outside that category. Also, not everyone working at these firms is a financial mogul, but their individual donations still count towards the total. So we decided to drill down a little deeper. We found a few sub-categories of "finance/insurance/real estate" that are a closer fit to "Wall Street." They include: • Securities and investment: Brown ranked first among Senate candidates in the 2012 campaign cycle with $2,682,872. • Private equity and investment firms: Brown ranked first with $556,092 in donations. • Hedge funds: Brown ranked first with $306,800 in donations. • Venture capital: Brown ranked first with $262,081 in donations. This provides support for the notion that Brown ranked No. 1 in these types of donations. But he ranked a little lower in two other categories: • Finance and credit companies: Brown ranked ninth with $54,450 in donations. • Commercial banks: Brown ranked third with $297,539 in donations. Meanwhile, Brown’s total haul from these six categories was about $4.2 million, or about one-fifth lower than what the ad said. This is not the first time that Shaheen’s campaign has used somewhat loose language in describing Brown’s donors. When a previous Shaheen ad claimed that "Big Oil gave Scott Brown $454,260," we rated that claim Half True, noting that only about 11.5 percent of Brown’s haul came from companies and individuals affiliated with the biggest multinational companies -- what most viewers would consider "Big Oil." When we contacted Brown’s staff, spokeswoman Elizabeth Guyton said, "Scott Brown’s fundraising is no different than Jeanne Shaheen’s in that they both accept contributions from the financial services industry. The only difference is that Jeanne Shaheen is hypocritically attacking him for it." However, in the 2012 election cycle -- when Brown was receiving $5.3 million from the finance/insurance/real estate sector -- Shaheen accepted just $64,139 from the same sector, ranking 65th among all Senate candidates. In the current cycle, she has accepted $565,935 from the finance/insurance/real estate sector, ranking her 21st among Senate candidates. Our ruling Shaheen’s ad said that in 2012, "Wall Street" gave Scott Brown "more campaign contributions than any other candidate -- $5.3 million." If you put together six categories that might reasonably be considered "Wall Street," Brown received about $4.2 million in all, and he finished first among Senate candidates in four of those six categories. However, the total amount is short of the $5.3 million claimed in the ad. The statement is generally accurate but needs clarification or additional information, so we rate it Mostly True.

Jeanne Shaheen

2014-09-19T16:08:08

2014-09-15

['None']

pomt-01975

Says Jeanne Shaheen "voted for a measure that would have amounted to a new national energy tax."

mostly false

/new-hampshire/statements/2014/jun/18/scott-brown/scott-brown-says-jeanne-shaheen-voted-new-national/

As he traveled across New Hampshire in early June 2014, Republican candidate Scott Brown sounded an alarm on U.S. Sen. Jeanne Shaheen’s views on energy policy. Brown warned that Shaheen, a Democrat who faces re-election in the fall, is pushing for a "national energy tax." The claim was repeated on Brown’s website and in a series of press releases from his campaign, and was reiterated in an op-ed published during his "making energy affordable" tour. Brown said he supports a variety of measures to make energy more affordable without passing "Sen. Shaheen’s national energy tax." With the New Hampshire Senate race drawing national attention, it wasn’t long before Brown’s comments were scrutinized. Judy Reardon, Shaheen’s chief counsel, issued a challenge to Brown’s campaign on Twitter, asking the former Massachusetts senator to provide evidence that Shaheen supports a "national energy tax." "Please cite the vote," she wrote in a June 9 message. Brown’s campaign manager, Colin Reed, shot back in a press release that he found it troubling Shaheen’s staff didn’t remember Shaheen’s votes in Congress. "The simple fact is that one year ago, Sen. Shaheen voted for a measure that would have amounted to a new national energy tax which would have a disastrous impact on New Hampshire’s economy," Reed said. With Brown and Shaheen sparring on energy policy, we decided to delve deeper into the issue. We were curious about whether Shaheen’s record indeed showed support for an energy tax or carbon tax, as taxes on oil, gas and coal usage are sometimes called. The logic behind the tax is that by making natural resources costlier for individuals and businesses to use, a carbon tax would encourage the use of alternative energy sources. Most economists agree that a carbon tax would be effective, but the issue hasn’t gained much political traction. We began by asking Brown’s campaign to explain his statements. Brown campaign staffer Elizabeth Guyton pointed us to Shaheen’s vote on a 2013 budget resolution put forth by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse, D-R.I., who has expressed support for implementing a carbon tax. The resolution stipulated that revenue generated by any future carbon tax must be given back to the public in some form. Shaheen voted in favor of the budget resolution, though nothing in that amendment would actually enact a carbon tax. Rather, the amendment offered a rough framework for how money generated from such a tax, if one were enacted, would be put to use. "I think that ultimately a fee on carbon pollution is inevitable, and the purpose of that amendment was to begin a discussion on that and begin the discussion about when that happens, what the best way to use the proceeds of the fee are," Whitehouse told reporters in September. "So from that point of view, I didn’t view it as binding anybody on a carbon fee, but I did view it as an assessment of the best way of using carbon fee proceeds." Although she was allying herself with a carbon tax supporter’s amendment, Shaheen’s vote wasn’t directly in support of a carbon tax. The second piece of evidence offered by Brown’s campaign concerns an amendment proposed by Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo. Blunt has emerged as a persistent carbon tax opponent in the Senate. In 2013, Blunt proposed an amendment that would have increased the threshold for passing a carbon tax framework within the budget resolution to 60 votes. Shaheen voted against this amendment, even as some of her Democratic colleagues from energy producing states voted for it. Still, by voting against Blunt’s measure, Shaheen wasn’t directly expressing support for a carbon tax. Shripal Shah, a spokesman from Shaheen’s Senate office, said that Shaheen has never supported a carbon tax. In an email, Shah wrote that Shaheen supports "market-driven solutions" to address pollution, such as the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative. This statement seems to fall in line with the position Shaheen took when she first campaigned for the Senate in 2008. During a roundtable discussion at Seacoast Energy Alternatives in Somersworth, New Hampshire, Shaheen said she would prefer a cap-and-trade program over a carbon tax because it’s "easier to sell to the population" and "puts the onus" on the polluters. When it comes to the legislative record, Shaheen’s efforts to influence energy policy since taking office have been focused largely on boosting energy efficiency. Shaheen partnered with Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, to craft an energy efficiency bill that would launch a federal training program for energy-efficient building design and operation and establish a loan program for energy improvements to homes and small businesses, among other initiatives. The bill has twice died in the Senate. The most recent effort failed on May 12, 2014, when supporters failed to reach the 60 votes necessary to close debate on the bill and proceed to a final vote. Shaheen took to the Senate floor after it became clear the measure would not pass to remind her colleagues that energy efficiency is the cheapest, fastest and cleanest way to address the country's energy demand. "One of the things that I like about energy efficiency is that it doesn’t matter whether you support fossil fuels or whether you support alternative sources of energy," she said. "Everyone benefits from energy efficiency." Our ruling Brown’s campaign said that Shaheen voted for a measure that would have amounted to a new national energy tax. The campaign cited Shaheen’s support for a 2013 amendment that would have established guidelines for any future carbon tax. They also pointed to Shaheen’s vote against legislation that would have made it harder to pass a carbon tax framework. Shaheen’s campaign told us Shaheen has never supported a carbon tax, and we didn’t find any evidence to contradict that. One of her major legislative efforts, the Shaheen-Portman bill, focused on energy efficiency. Brown has a point that Shaheen voted for a revenue plan offered by a carbon tax supporter and shrugged off a proposal from a carbon tax opponent. Still, neither of those positions is the same as voting for a new energy tax. We rate this claim Mostly False.

Scott Brown

2014-06-18T11:45:59

2014-06-10

['None']

pomt-12162

Untaxed corporate earnings used to be "$2.5 trillion … I guess it’s $5 trillion now. Whatever it is, it’s a lot more. So we have anywhere from 4 (trillion) to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore."

false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2017/aug/03/donald-trump/are-there-over-4-trillion-untaxed-corporate-earnin/

President Donald Trump said U.S. companies have anywhere from $4 trillion to $5 trillion in offshore accounts — a substantial increase from just last year. Trump blamed the large sum of money on what he (inaccurately) considers the highest tax rate in the world in a July 25 Wall Street Journal interview obtained by Politico. "We’re the highest-taxed nation in the world, essentially, you know, of the size," Trump said. "But we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world. We have — nobody knows what the number is. I mean, it used to be, when we talked during the debate, $2.5 trillion … I guess it’s $5 trillion now. Whatever it is, it’s a lot more. So we have anywhere from 4 (trillion) to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore." We’ve already rated Trump’s previous claims that we’re the highest-taxed nation in the world False. This time we took a look at the amount of U.S. money sitting in offshore accounts. How much untaxed foreign revenue is out there, and could the figure have doubled since Trump cited the $2.5 trillion figure during the 2016 campaign? The White House did not provide information for this fact-check. We’ll start off by saying there is no public estimate on untaxed earnings overseas, as there is no law requiring they be reported. Researchers can instead look at the indefinitely reinvested earnings on financial statements of publicly traded companies. Indefinitely invested earnings aren’t making their way back to the United States anytime soon, which lets them off the hook for taxes and thus fatten after-tax profits. They might go to overseas factories, prospective acquisitions or other investments. Other companies may instead take on a deferred liability, which entails a future tax bill -- but while currently untaxed, most go undisclosed, so they aren’t counted in the researchers’ figures. The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation can provide a fuller picture, because the committee has access to total untaxed foreign earnings. However, that information is only turned over to members of Congress. The last time the committee made its findings public was in an August 2016 memo to two congressmen. In 2012, the committee said, $2.3 trillion of foreign earnings went untaxed. Using predictive models, they estimated the number at $2.6 trillion for 2015. The committee cited Audit Analytics, a third-party research service, to corroborate these findings. Audit Analytics found $2.4 trillion in indefinitely reinvested earnings. There was a $200 billion difference between the JCT’s estimate of untaxed foreign earnings and Audit Analytics’ calculation of indefinitely reinvested ones, which is what experts estimate the current discrepancy to be. Audit Analytics ran its latest numbers for us. The company found $2.8 trillion of indefinitely reinvested earnings are sitting overseas, as of July 2017 — far short of what Trump described. "It is possible that analysts are still working on entering information from small companies, but it would not change the number from the rounded-off figure of 2.8 trillion," Audit Analytics research director Don Whalen said. We also turned to the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, which found that Fortune 500 companies — a slightly smaller pool — report $2.6 trillion offshore. ITEP included total untaxed earnings, not just indefinitely reinvested ones, in their studies of Apple and Pfizer, as these companies provide a disclosure allowing for a fuller estimate of their untaxed offshore income and generate a significant amount of earnings through this mechanism. "There is no reason to believe that this figure is substantially higher than what companies report and certainly not double the reported amount as President Donald Trump has contended without citing any source," said Taxation and Economic Policy senior policy analyst Richard Phillips. So what else could cause the discrepancy? Edward Kleinbard, the Robert C. Packard Trustee Chair in Law at the USC's Gould School of Law, said that firms double down their offshore tax planning when they expect a tax holiday, which is when they get to bring back offshore earnings while paying little to no taxes on them. "It’s plausible that people have accelerated their gamesmanship in the anticipation that in tax reform there will be another tax holiday," Kleinbard said. "But it’s not plausible to think the number could be as high as the 2 trillion-dollar difference between the data and what the president said." Another possibility is for Trump to have counted tax inversions, which is when a small foreign company in a lower taxed country acquires a larger U.S. company and thus reduces their taxes. But that would entail a change in the definition of untaxed revenue. And even if we were to make that calculation, Kleinbard said the number wouldn’t expand by so much in such a short time span. Our ruling Trump described untaxed corporate earnings in overseas accounts as growing monumentally, from around $2.5 trillion to "anywhere from 4 (trillion) to 5 or even more trillions of dollars sitting offshore." The highest reported number of offshore earnings is $2.8 trillion. That could be off by a couple hundred billion dollars due to undisclosed untaxed earnings. But experts agreed the discrepancy could not add up to Trump’s $4 trillion or $5 trillion estimate. Business optimism and altered definitions of untaxed revenue couldn’t bridge that gap either. We rate this statement False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com

Donald Trump

2017-08-03T17:08:31

2017-07-25

['None']

chct-00006

FACT CHECK: Can Trump End Birthright Citizenship With An Executive Order?

verdict: unsubstantiated

http://checkyourfact.com/2018/11/01/fact-check-trump-birthright-citizenship-executive-order/

Brad Sylvester | Fact Check Reporter

4:43 PM 11/01/2018

['None']

goop-00745

John Travolta Won’t Allow Daughter Ella To Become An Actress?

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/john-travolta-daughter-ella-actress/

Andrew Shuster

John Travolta Won’t Allow Daughter Ella To Become An Actress?

4:20 pm, June 26, 2018

['None']

hoer-00372

'Daddy it Hurts' Anti-Child Abuse Chain Letter

facebook scams

https://www.hoax-slayer.com/daddy-it-hurts.shtml

Brett M. Christensen

'Daddy it Hurts' Anti-Child Abuse Chain Letter

3rd April 2012

['None']

peck-00039

Are Nine Out Of Ten Tanzanian Children Undernourished?

true

https://pesacheck.org/are-nine-out-of-ten-tanzanian-children-undernourished-b558a8380b16

Belinda Japhet

Are Nine Out Of Ten Tanzanian Children Undernourished?

Jan 11

['None']

pomt-14477

The Chris Hani Baragwanath in South Africa is "the world’s third-biggest hospital."

half-true

/global-news/statements/2016/feb/29/chris-hani-baragwanath-hospital/no-soweto-hospital-not-third-largest-world/

The Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital has been in the black township of Soweto in Johannesburg since World War II when it opened to care for British soldiers. Today, it is a sprawling compound of over 400 buildings housing about 3,200 beds. Those numbers clearly mean a lot to management because on the hospital’s website, right under its name, is the statement "The world’s third-biggest hospital, in South Africa." That’s not quite right, according to our colleagues at Africa Check. Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital says it trails only West China Hospital, affiliated with Sichuan University in the city of Chengdu, with about 4,300 beds, and Chang Gung Memorial Hospital, which lists about 9,000 beds. But Africa Check found an additional hospital that edges out the Soweto health center. The Clinical Centre of Serbia in Belgrade has 3,470 beds available. So Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital ranks at least fourth, not third. It’s actually not even a close fourth because repairs and renovations have trimmed the number of beds open right now. A hospital spokesman told Africa Check that a more accurate current total is 2,888. For the curious, New York Presbyterian has 2,328 beds, Florida Hospital Orlando has 2,247 beds and the Hospital das Clinicas with the University of Sao Paulo Medical School has 2,200 beds. Our ruling Administrators of the Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital in Soweto, Johannesburg, said theirs is the third-largest in the world. Today, the hospital has 2,888 useable beds. A hospital in Belgrade, Serbia, has 3,470. The Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital is large, but not as large as it believes. We rate this statement Half True.

Chris Hani Baragwanath Hospital

2016-02-29T12:27:35

2016-02-29

['South_Africa']

snes-03061

Sneak Impact

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/will-a-doomsday-asteroid-destroy-earth-in-february-2017/

Science

Alex Kasprak

Will a Doomsday Asteroid Destroy Earth in February 2017?

26 January 2017

['None']

pomt-10936

I’m the first Democrat to ever lead Scott Walker in an election year.

false

/wisconsin/statements/2018/jul/26/tony-evers/evers-boast-beating-walker-poll-short-finish-line/

Is a blue wave going to hit Wisconsin come November? It’s a question that has been heavily debated since the election of President Donald Trump in 2016 -- and the wave of Democratic candidates who have won elections across the country in the months since. Republican Gov. Scott Walker, who was first elected in 2010, has warned about complacency and the prospect of Democrats winning the office in the fall. The race as of July is a still-dense field of Democratic candidates challenging Walker, who withstood challenges by Democrats Tom Barrett in 2012 and Mary Burke in 2014. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Evers has been leading the field of Democrats in the polls, and in a June 27, 2018, campaign email made a claim we want to check: "I’m the first Democrat to ever lead Scott Walker in an election year." Is he right? The Evers poll When asked for backup, Evers’ campaign team did not point to any independent polling that confirmed a lead over Walker. Instead, they pointed to an Evers-financed poll that was conducted from May 9 to 10, 2018, by the privately-owned, Democratic polling firm Public Policy Polling. Those who participated in the automated telephone interviews were not informed of who paid for the poll, and Evers’ campaign had nothing to do with the poll other than paying for it, said Jim Williams, an analyst with the firm. Respondents were asked: "If the election for Governor were held today and the candidates were Democratic Wisconsin Superintendent of Public Schools Tony Evers, and Republican Governor Scott Walker, who would you vote for?" The result: Evers received 49 percent, while Walker had 45 percent, with 6 percent undecided. According to a news release regarding the poll, the firm questioned 644 registered voters in Wisconsin. The poll had a margin of error of nearly 3.9 percent -- or, roughly the same amount Evers led by. Other polling in the 2018 race Of course, many campaigns do their own polling -- though they typically only release results that offer the most positive spin. Meanwhile, the Marquette University Law School poll has done a set of head-to-head matchups between Walker and Evers (and Walker vs. other candidates) in June. The poll showed the opposite of what Evers’ poll found: As of June, Walker led by a margin of 4 percent: 48 percent favored Walker and 44 percent favored Evers. Walker also led the rest of his potential opponents in head-to-head matchups. In the most recent poll, released July 18, 2018, voters were not asked about direct matchups with Walker, but Evers led fellow Democratic contenders, with 31 percent of voters choosing Evers. Still, about 38% said they did not know who they plan to vote for in the August primary, and it is not yet clear that he’d bode well against Walker if he does proceed to the November election. In the July poll, Walker’s approval rating was 47 percent, with 45 percent disapproving. So, the internal poll cited by Evers is at odds with the main public poll released during this cycle. But, the main question is whether his claim holds up when looking at past Walker runs. Polls in past gubernatorial races When asked to support his claim, the Evers’ campaign referred to past Marquette Law School polls during Burke’s run against Walker in 2014 and Barrett’s run in 2012, as well as a New York Times compilation of independent pollsters regarding the 2010 election between Walker and Barrett. (The Marquette poll did not exist in 2010.) At the same time, the campaign sought to refine the original statement. "There is no other proof of a Democratic candidate beating Scott Walker by four points in an election year," Maggie Gau, Evers’ campaign manager, said in an email. Now, it may be true that no candidate was leading Walker by exactly four points. But there is evidence of other candidates pulling ahead in some polls -- though not many. Let’s look at the elections. 2010: In a Marist poll that involved 811 registered voters in October 2010, Barrett led Walker by 3 points, 44 percent to 41 percent. The poll was performed by the Marist College Institute for Public Opinion, a survey research center in Poughkeepsie, N.Y. That is the only instance Barrett pulled ahead of Walker during that election season. 2012: In a February 2012 Public Policy Polling poll of 900 registered voters, Barrett led Walker 49 percent to 46 percent. Another Democratic candidate in the race at the time, Kathleen Falk, also led Walker in the poll, 48 percent to 47 percent. Unlike the PPP survey Evers referenced in his claim, this poll was not paid for by any candidate in the race. Also like the Evers PPP poll, those results are within the margin of error of +/- 3.27 percent. A May 2012 Marquette poll also showed that among registered voters Barrett led Walker 47percent to 46 percent. However, the one-point advantage was the opposite among likely voters, who preferred Walker 48 to 47 percent. 2014: Polls showed the race between Burke and Walker as a tight one. According to a Marquette poll from August 2014, Walker led among registered voters 47.5 percent to 44.1 percent, but Burke led among likely voters 48.6 percent to 46.5 percent. Another survey, by Rasmussen Reports in October of that year, found Burke led Walker 49 percent to 48 percent. The survey pool included 973 likely voters. Our rating In a campaign email, Evers said "I’m the first Democrat to ever lead Scott Walker in an election year." He cited a single internal poll -- one at odds with public polling in the race. But there were two instances in which Burke led Walker -- however slightly -- in 2014, and one poll in which Barrett led Walker in 2010. We rate Evers’ claim False. (Editor's note: On July 26, 2018, after this item was published, an NBC-Marist College poll was released that showed Evers leading Walker 54 percent to 41 percent. That does not change this item, as Evers' claim related to past elections.) See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com

Tony Evers

2018-07-26T06:00:00

2018-06-27

['Democratic_Party_(United_States)', 'Scott_Walker_(politician)']

faly-00076

Fact Check: Did Manmohan Singh undertake more foreign visits than Narendra Modi?

none

https://factly.in/fact-check-manmohan-singh-undertake-foreign-visits-narendra-modi/

Fact Check: Did Manmohan Singh undertake more foreign visits than Narendra Modi?

['None']

snes-01786

A major Hepatitis A outbreak in San Diego has been pinned on undocumented immigrants there.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/hepatitis-a-outbreak-in-san-diego/

Medical

Arturo Garcia

Are ‘Illegal Immigrants’ To Blame For a Hepatitis A Outbreak in San Diego?

5 September 2017

['San_Diego']

goop-02463

Katie Holmes Meeting With Tom Cruise About Jamie Foxx,

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/katie-holmes-tom-cruise-meeting-jamie-foxx/

Andrew Shuster

Katie Holmes NOT Meeting With Tom Cruise About Jamie Foxx, Despite Report

1:50 pm, September 14, 2017

['Jamie_Foxx', 'Tom_Cruise']

pomt-07247

There's a 1.5 percent to 2 percent overhead in Medicare. The insurance companies have a 20 percent to 30 percent overhead.

half-true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/may/30/barbara-boxer/barbara-boxer-says-medicare-overhead-far-lower-pri/

Amid a fierce debate over the future of Medicare, Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., recently compared the administrative costs for the government-run program with the costs for private insurers. "There's a 1.5 percent to 2 percent overhead in Medicare," Boxer said during an interview with MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on May 24, 2011. "The insurance companies have a 20 percent to 30 percent overhead." The issue is timely because Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., has proposed reducing the government role in Medicare for people now younger than 55. They would receive financial support to buy coverage on the private market. Supporters say such a plan is needed to keep the program fiscally solvent, while detractors say it would gut longstanding protections and promises to seniors. Boxer’s comment cuts to the core of whether a government-run program like Medicare has advantages over one in which private insurers take a primary role. First, we should define "overhead." People may think of it as things such as rent and electricity. But in health care, the term typically refers more broadly to administrative costs, including expenses that are not strictly medical, such as marketing, customer service, billing, claims review, quality assurance, information technology and profits. To measure the administrative costs for Medicare, we first turned to the 2011 Annual Report of the Boards of Trustees of the Federal Hospital Insurance and Federal Supplementary Medical Insurance Trust Funds -- the document prepared by Medicare’s fiscal overseers. The trustees’ summary listed total Medicare expenditures of $522.8 billion for 2010, of which $7 billion was characterized as "administrative expenses." That works out to 1.3 percent -- not far off from what Boxer stated. For the private insurance market, we turned to a 2008 study by the Congressional Budget Office, the nonpartisan number-crunching arm of Congress. CBO cited data, compiled by the McKinsey Global Institute, that estimated administrative costs for private insurers at 12 percent. That’s quite a bit lower than the 20 percent to 30 percent Boxer cited. A different measurement by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services pegged the amount for private insurers at 11.1 percent for 2009 -- in the same ballpark. However, the administrative burden for private plans get more complicated the deeper you dig. There are large variations between different types of insurance plans. The data cited by CBO found that administrative costs were about 7 percent for employers with at least 1,000 employees, but 26 percent for firms with 25 or fewer employees. Meanwhile, in the individual insurance market -- that is, plans secured by individuals on their own, rather than through an employer -- the rate was nearly 30 percent, CBO said. A big reason for this variation, CBO and others have concluded, is that bigger plans can spread costs over a larger number of people. When we asked Boxer’s office for their source for the 20 percent-to-30 percent statistic, spokesman Andy Stone told us that prior to passage of the Democratic health care bill in 2010, health plans in California were only required to spend 70 percent of premiums on medical care, with insurers able to spend up to 30 percent on profits and administrative costs. He also cited some opinion and news articles that cited figures in the 20 percent to 30 percent range, and even higher. We don’t doubt that there are cases in which overhead reaches or exceeds 30 percent, but those cases are both anecdotal and at the high end of the range. The averages cited by CBO and CMS are significantly lower -- 11 percent to 12 percent -- and many of the bigger plans undercut even that level. There are a few other factors to consider: Is Medicare’s administrative cost really that low? A lively academic debate has broken out over whether Medicare’s administrative costs are really as low as 1 percent or 2 percent. The difference stems from whether Medicare essentially freeloads off other parts of the federal government for services that private insurers have to pay for on their own. Adjusted estimates for Medicare’s administrative costs cited by the Urban Institute, a think tank that does research on issues such as poverty and economics, range from 3.6 percent to 5 percent, rather than the 1.3 percent using the data in the trustees’ report. But Edwin Park, a health policy specialist at the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, said that the differences are overblown, since Medicare’s administrative cost total already includes payments to other agencies for such services. We won’t settle this question, but we will point out evidence that even when you control for the differences, Medicare is still considerably more cost-efficient. In one study, CBO found that privately run Medicare plans had 11 percent overhead, compared to 2 percent for traditional Medicare. Are "overhead" costs a useful way to measure the efficiency of a health plan? Not necessarily. As the insurance industry often says -- and independent experts generally agree -- the right kind of administrative expenses may actually lead to cost savings and improved outcomes. These include disease management, wellness programs and quality improvement programs. CBO notes that a heavily managed insurance plan may spend more on overhead but may end up with lower premiums and better outcomes, whereas a lightly managed program may spend less on overhead but end up charging its policyholders more, with less positive results. By this logic, a higher-overhead plan might actually be preferable. In addition, Henry Aaron, a health care specialist at the centrist-to-liberal Brookings Institution, suggested that over the long run, Medicare could benefit financially from having higher administrative costs in at least one area -- anti-fraud enforcement. In other words, measuring overhead is worthwhile, but it has its limitations. Our ruling There is some disagreement over how much Medicare pays in overhead. It could be a few percentage points higher than the 1 to 2 percent that Boxer cites. But Boxer’s numbers are defensible since they come straight from the Medicare trustees’ report. Meanwhile, Boxer’s 20 percent-to-30 percent figure for the private sector is more squishy. Some plans have overhead rates that high, but only a fraction do, and the industry-wide average is quite a bit lower -- 11 to 12 percent. We’re convinced that Boxer’s underlying point -- that private plans have higher overhead than government plans -- is correct, if for no other reason than that profits matter only for private insurers. But for most plans and patients, the difference between Medicare overhead and private-sector overhead is not as great as she suggests. So we rate her statement Half True.

Barbara Boxer

2011-05-30T06:00:00

2011-05-24

['None']

vees-00409

A year under Duterte: Curses and insults

none

http://verafiles.org/articles/year-under-duterte-curses-and-insults

Duterte,duterte one year

A year under Duterte: Curses and insults

June 30, 2017

['None']

pomt-00558

Millennials "will be 75 percent of the workforce in the next 10 years."

mostly false

/virginia/statements/2015/jun/15/mark-warner/warner-says-millennials-will-have-75-percent-jobs-/

The dominance of millennial workers -- the generation born from the early 1980s to the late 1990s -- is fast emerging in the United States, according to Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va. "Millennials are now 80 million strong. They pushed folks like me, the baby boomers, off the stage in terms of the percentage of the workforce. They’ll be 75 percent of the workforce in the next 10 years," Warner said during a June 4 interview on CNBC. Warner repeated the figure in a speech the same day to the New America Foundation in Washington. In both instances, he used it to illustrate what he said is a need to address the economic security of millennials who are coming of age in a "gig economy" where they earn a living doing short term projects rather than relying on a steady job with retirement benefits. We wondered whether Warner’s figure is correct. Rachel Cohen, the senator’s spokeswoman, sent us links to articles in The Washington Post, National Journal, Wired and other publications that used the 75 percent statistic. A quick Google search of our own found many other citations. But there were problems: None of the materials identified the original source of the figures and we couldn’t find it on our own. On the other hand, we came across an article last November in The Wall Street Journal that crunched projections by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and found the 75 the percent claim is a sham. We came to the same conclusion after examining the BLS data. The Pew Research Center defines millennials as those who are now aged 18-34. Using that age definition for millennials means the generation, in 2025, will be 28 to 44 years old. The BLS projects that 10 years from now, there will be 73.9 million people aged 25-44 in the U.S. workforce. They’ll make up 44 percent of a total labor force of 168.7 million. The Journal noted in its analysis that even if younger people in the generation after millennials -- unofficially dubbed generation z -- are included, the proportion still wouldn’t hit the three-quarters mark. The millennials and generation z workers would comprise 56 percent of the workforce in 2025. That said, there’s no doubt that the millennials are coming of age. Pew recently reported that during the first three months of this year, they became the largest group in the labor force, with 53.5 million workers, or 34 percent. Generation X has 52.7 million workers, also 34 percent, and 44.6 million baby boomers were working, or 29 percent of the workforce. Our ruling Warner says millennials will make up 75 percent of the workforce a decade from now. Projections show that they’re on track to make up about 44 percent of the workforce in 10 years. Clearly, the millennials are rising, but nowhere near the pace Warner describes. We rate his statement Mostly False.

Mark Warner

2015-06-15T00:00:00

2015-06-04

['None']

snes-00841

Was a Scuba Diver Hospitalized After Getting His Penis Stuck in a Giant Clam?

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/was-scuba-diver-hospitalized-clam/

Junk News

Dan Evon

Was a Scuba Diver Hospitalized After Getting His Penis Stuck in a Giant Clam?

27 March 2018

['None']

tron-02685

Obama’s tax proposals

mostly fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/taxes-election/

money-financial

Obama’s tax proposals

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

goop-02326

“How To Get Away With Murder” Recap: “Was She Ever Good At Her Job?”

10

https://www.gossipcop.com/how-to-get-away-with-murder-recap-was-she-ever-good-job-htgawm-october-19-2017/

Shari Weiss

“How To Get Away With Murder” Recap: “Was She Ever Good At Her Job?”

10:53 pm, October 19, 2017

['None']

tron-00929

Video of an Amazing Three Dimensional Printer

truth!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/three-d-printer/

computers

Video of an Amazing Three Dimensional Printer

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

snes-00389

Did Barack Obama Say ‘If We Don’t Do Something About This President, I Will?’

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-do-something-about-president/

Politics

Dan Evon

Did Barack Obama Say ‘If We Don’t Do Something About This President, I Will?’

2 July 2018

['None']

tron-01084

There’s a Mandatory Gun Ownership Law in Kennesaw, Georgia

truth! & fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/theres-a-mandatory-gun-ownership-law-in-kennesaw-georgia/

crime-police

There’s a Mandatory Gun Ownership Law in Kennesaw, Georgia

Aug 6, 2015

['None']

snes-03608

A van full of "illegals" traveled from voting booth to voting booth in Arizona in order to vote (illegally) for Hillary Clinton.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/van-full-of-illegals-shows-up-to-vote-clinton-at-six-polling-places/

Conspiracy Theories

Brooke Binkowski

Van Full of ‘Illegals’ Shows up to Vote Clinton at Six Polling Places

8 November 2016

['Arizona', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton']

pomt-05052

Sixteen thousand new Internal Revenue Service agents will be "empowered to enforce" the new health care legislation.

mostly false

/georgia/statements/2012/jul/10/tom-price/price-16000-irs-agents-will-enforce-obama-health-c/

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has let President Barack Obama’s signature health care law stand, Republicans are grousing like it’s 2009. The law’s foes are dusting off 3-year-old talking points they used in their unsuccessful attempt to squelch it in Congress. U.S. Rep. Tom Price, a Republican from Roswell, recently revived this retro claim about Internal Revenue Service agents as he emphasized the court’s finding that the bill is constitutional under the federal government’s taxing powers: "This is indeed a tax. We talked about it at the time with the 16,000 IRS -- new IRS agents -- that will be empowered to enforce this new tax," Price said during a C-SPAN call-in show June 29. Sixteen thousand new IRS agents? That claim sounded awfully familiar to us here at PolitiFact Georgia. As presidential hopefuls, Ron Paul, Jon Huntsman and Michele Bachmann used versions of this claim, as have other politicians, including Georgia’s own U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss. Even the most accurate versions of this talking point earned mediocre ratings on the Truth-O-Meter. They ranged from Pants on Fire to Half True. Did this claim improve with age like a fine wine? We contacted Price’s office, dug through past PolitiFact research and looked at a recent IRS budget request. The main reason that past claims earned low Truth-O-Meter ratings is that the number comes from a partisan estimate based on squishy assumptions. This is how the IRS talking point came to be: On Dec. 19, 2009, the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan referee on budget questions, released an analysis of the Senate version of the health care bill that became the basis for the health care law. The CBO wrote that it had not completed cost estimates for the IRS and other federal agencies responsible for implementing the law. But it did say the IRS "would probably" need to spend "between $5 billion and $10 billion over 10 years." The CBO suggested nothing about how those costs would translate to jobs, PolitiFact National found. Republicans with the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee, which handles federal tax legislation, used the high end of the IRS’ rough budget number to estimate 16,500 employees might be hired to implement the bill. PolitiFact ruled that Republicans cherry-picked the high number to favor their case. Also, even Ways and Means Republicans acknowledged that the figure could be less than 16,500 new jobs. Their calculations do not take into account the possibility that some of the money would buy things such as desks and office supplies for new workers. In other words, it’s fair to assume the IRS will need to hire new employees. It may need thousands of them. But using such a specific figure suggests a degree of certainty that does not exist. Furthermore, Ways and Means Republicans did not find that the IRS would have to hire 16,000 or more new "agents," as Price and other Obama health care bill foes have said. That number was for "employees," a broader category that can include other workers such as administrative assistants, phone operators and staff attorneys. Now the IRS is hiring staff to implement these changes. Price spokesman Ryan Murphy told PolitiFact Georgia that current hiring numbers suggest that the 16,000 estimate is reasonable. We took a look at the IRS budget requests to check out this assertion. For the current fiscal year, the IRS requested funding for more than 1,250 employees to prepare for the health care tax changes, according to its budget proposal. Most would fill support roles in areas such as information technology or customer service. Fewer than one-quarter would be agents. For next fiscal year, the IRS requested funding for nearly 860 employees. Fewer than 10 percent would be agents. This places the agent tally for fiscal years 2012 and 2013 near 375. How do we rule? Price said that 16,000 new "agents" would be empowered to enforce the health care law. His claim carries a kernel of truth. The IRS will have to hire agents to implement these changes. But his statement misstated the findings of a partisan estimate. Ways and Means Republicans said that about 16,000 "employees," not "agents," may be hired to enforce the bill’s provisions. They also acknowledged that the actual number of hires may be lower. IRS budget requests for the 2012 and 2013 fiscal years show they asked for about 375 more agents so far -- far less than 16,000. And like other pols who have used versions of this talking point, Price used such a specific figure that he suggests a degree of certainty that doesn’t exist. Price therefore earns a Mostly False.

Tom Price

2012-07-10T06:00:00

2012-06-29

['None']

pomt-09341

Obama said troops "whine about bearing the costs" of going to war.

pants on fire!

/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/apr/09/chain-email/fiction-touted-fact-anti-obama-e-mail/

This chain e-mail caught our attention after readers debated its validity on the PolitiFact Facebook page. It purports to be Obama's comments about veterans who opposed a proposal to change their health insurance. "Look, it's an all volunteer force," Obama complained. "Nobody made these guys go to war. They had to have known and accepted the risks. Now they whine about bearing the costs of their choice? It doesn't compute." "I thought these were people who were proud to sacrifice for their country," Obama continued. "I wasn't asking for blood, just money. With the country facing the worst financial crisis in its history, I'd have thought that the patriotic thing to do would be to try to help reduce the nation's deficit. I guess I underestimated the selfishness of some of my fellow Americans." The problem is Obama never said these words. They actually come from the humorist John Semmens, who writes satire on the news. Semmens wrote his report in March 2009 after the White House abandoned a plan to bill veterans' private insurers for their war-related injuries. It was intended as a cost-savings measure, to save the Veterans Administration $530 million a year. Veterans groups opposed the plan, and the White House scuttled the idea. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs issued a press release on the matter on March 18, 2009: "The President demonstrated his deep commitment to veterans by proposing the largest increase in the VA budget in 30 years and calling VSO (Veterans Service Organizations) and MSO (Military Service Organizations) leaders into the White House for an unprecedented meeting to discuss various aspects of the budget proposal," Gibbs said. "In considering the third party billing issue, the administration was seeking to maximize the resources available for veterans; however, the President listened to concerns raised by the VSOs that this might, under certain circumstances, affect veterans and their families' ability to access health care. Therefore, the President has instructed that its consideration be dropped. The President wants to continue a constructive partnership with the VSOs and MSOs and is grateful to those VSOs and MSOs who have worked in good faith with him on the budget proposal." This chain e-mail is still going around even though our friends at the other fact-checking organizations -- Factcheck.org and Snopes-- have both already debunked it. It also contrasts sharply with Obama's actual attitude toward the troops. Look at this excerpt from recent remarks he made to troops in Afghanistan on March 28, 2010. "You are part of the finest military in the history of the world, and we are proud of you. And so I want you to know that everybody back home is proud of you. Everybody back home is grateful. And everybody understands the sacrifices that you have made and your families have made to keep America safe and to keep America secure in this vital mission," Obama said. "You've been there for us, tour after tour, year after year, at a time when too many American institutions have let us down, when too many institutions have put short-term gain in front of a commitment to duty and a commitment to what's right," he added. "You've met your responsibilities, you've done your duty -- not just when it's easy. That's why you've inspired your fellow Americans. That's why you inspire me. That's why you've earned your place next to the very greatest of American generations. And all of you represent the virtues and the values that America so desperately needs right now: sacrifice and selflessness, honor and decency. That's why you're here today. That's what you represent." The chain e-mail that purports to be Obama's comments on troops is maliciously false. But it's not the first time we've seen satire re-purposed for a chain e-mail, and it probably won't be the last. We rate this one Pants on Fire!

Chain email

2010-04-09T14:44:43

2010-04-09

['None']

goop-02790

“Survivor: Game Changers” Recap: Who Was Voted Out 13th And 14th?

10

https://www.gossipcop.com/survivor-game-changers-recap-may-17-2017-michaela-eliminated-andrea-voted-off/

Shari Weiss

“Survivor: Game Changers” Recap: Who Was Voted Out 13th And 14th?

8:54 pm, May 17, 2017

['None']

snes-03738

An image shows Maria Bartiromo holding a phone decorated with a "Trump/Pence" sticker at the annual Al Smith Dinner.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/al-smith-dinner-sticker/

Uncategorized

Dan Evon

Reporter Displays Trump/Pence Sticker at Al Smith Dinner

21 October 2016

['None']

pomt-13554

In Congress, (Cresent Hardy) voted to defund DACA.

half-true

/nevada/statements/2016/aug/25/ruben-kihuen/daca-funding-ruben-kihuen-oversimplifies-votes-tak/

Democratic congressional candidate Ruben Kihuen is accusing his Republican opponent of voting to defund programs that protect millions of people not legally in the country from being deported. At a recent press conference celebrating the fourth anniversary of President Barack Obama’s signing of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, or DACA, the state senator directly accused incumbent Republican Rep. Cresent Hardy of voting to defund the program. "In Congress, he voted to defund DACA," Kihuen said. "He voted to get rid of the DACA program." Hardy represents one of the nation’s few true swing districts. We decided to check this claim because the topic of immigration reform is critical in a district with a huge Latino population. Reviewing Hardy’s voting record and public statements on the topic of DACA funding presents a more complex picture than the one Kihuen asserts. DACA funding Kihuen’s claim refers to House amendments on a 2015 Department of Homeland Security funding bill. The debate turned into a political fight over Obama’s immigration executive orders. Several amendments sought to block funding to DACA and similar programs. Then-Speaker John Boehner said the measures were in response to Obama "unilaterally" rewriting immigration law through executive orders. But Hardy and fellow Nevada Republicans Joe Heck and Mark Amodei broke with their party, joining 23 other Republicans in voting against an amendment defunding the original 2012 DACA program. It still passed on a 218-209 vote. The three Nevadans fell back in the party fold on a separate amendment blocking funding of Obama’s expanded DACA program and a separate executive order shielding parents of U.S. citizens or lawful residents from deportation (commonly known as DAPA). That amendment passed on a larger 237-190 vote margin. At the time, Hardy’s office said his votes represented a desire to not take away rights already granted to people in the program, but he was still opposed to what he called the president’s "executive overreach" in creating the programs. Hardy (and the other Nevada House Republicans) voted in favor of the final funding bill that included the amendment defunding DACA. The final bill languished in the Senate (Hardy signed on to a letter demanding the measure be taken up) until nearly reaching the point where the department would run out of funds. Republican leadership eventually stripped out the contentious immigration riders attached to the funding bill. Hardy voted in favor of the "clean" spending bill, joining Democrats and 74 other Republicans to pass the measure and send it to President for approval just hours before the funding deadline. In a statement at the time, Hardy decried the "unacceptable, unconstitutional and temporary" immigration executive orders, but said voting for the funding bill was necessary to ensure that the department didn’t fall victim to a "political stalemate." "Funding for the Department of Homeland Security should always be a top priority and not used as a political football," Hardy’s campaign manager Ross Hemminger told PolitiFact Nevada in an email. So is Kihuen right to say that Hardy voted to get rid of DACA? The answer really depends on which vote is highlighted — the Republican technically voted for a version of the funding bill that included language defunding the program, but he voted against that amendment in particular and went against the majority of House Republicans to vote for the "clean" version of the legislation. Hardy’s stance Hardy initially took a tougher stance on DACA before taking office. In an interview with the Las Vegas Review-Journal’s editorial board before the 2014 election, Hardy said he would have voted for a bill ending the initial DACA program but still wanted young undocumented workers to be able to stay in the country and apply through citizenship. He told the Las Vegas Sun soon after being elected in 2014 that he would oppose any executive action "granting amnesty" to the millions not legally in the country. More recently, Hardy joined with fellow House Republicans in voting to allow Republican Speaker Paul Ryan to file an amicus curiae brief in a state-driven lawsuit over the expanded DACA and DAPA programs. That case only dealt with the expansion of DACA and the DAPA program, which are consistent with Hardy’s votes. The DACA expansion and DAPA are stalled after a 4-4 Supreme Court ruling left a lower court’s injunction in place. Our ruling Kihuen said Hardy "voted to defund DACA" while in Congress. Kihuen oversimplifies Hardy’s record on DACA, which is more mixed than the claim lets on. Hardy did vote for a version of a bill that included an amendment defunding DACA. But Hardy also voted against that specific amendment when it came up on the floor, and he broke with the majority of his party to send the final bill to the president. There’s some truth here, but Kihuen is gross oversimplifying the matter and taking things out of context. We rate his comments as Half True.

Ruben Kihuen

2016-08-25T16:00:49

2016-08-15

['United_States_Congress']