Datasets:

pszemraj

/

multi_fc

like 1

pomt-12134

Says Jose Felix Diaz supports President Donald Trump's "plan to slash Medicare, charge older Americans an age tax and cut coverage for pre-existing conditions."

mostly false

/florida/statements/2017/aug/14/florida-democratic-legislative-campaign-committee/democrats-mislead-attack-linking-florida-senate-ca/

Florida Democrats are trying to attach President Donald Trump to the Republican in a Miami state Senate race seen as a crucial battleground. Millions of dollars are expected to be spent on the race between former Republican state Rep. Jose Felix Diaz and Democrat Annette Taddeo for Senate District 40. The Sept. 26 special election was called to replace Sen. Frank Artiles, who resigned after using sexist and racist language. The Florida Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee, the state Senate Democrats’ campaign arm, released a new TV ad featuring Taddeo. It links Diaz to Trump’s support for repealing Obamacare — using a photo of Diaz and Trump together at the inauguration as more proof of their lockstep bond. "Jose Felix Diaz supports Trump's every move including his plan to slash Medicare, charge older Americans an age tax and cut coverage for pre-existing conditions," states the ad. The ad is referencing Trump’s plan to repeal Obamacare and is a nod to efforts in the U.S. House and Senate to repeal and replace the law. Diaz was a consistent vote against the Affordable Care Act as a statehouse member, even though his actions could not influence the federal law. But the ad exaggerates the support Diaz lent to the U.S. House and Senate legislation this year. He has mostly been quiet on the issue. Diaz fought against Obamacare years ago The Democrats offered no proof of Diaz speaking in favor of the Obamacare repeal proposals that Congress debated and voted on in 2017. Diaz has avoided the topic in his bid for state Senate. That isn’t too surprising since if he wins, he would have no ability to vote on a federal replacement. We could not find any evidence in news archives or campaign literature showing Diaz weighing in on federal proposals in recent months to repeal or replace Obamacare. That’s a problem for the Democrats’ accusation. In the absence of any supportive Diaz comments, the Democrats detailed four anti-Obamacare votes Diaz took as a state representative in 2011 and 2012. Those votes were largely symbolic, and they had no connection to the specific policy advocated in the GOP repeal-and-replace efforts in Congress in recent months. (The risk to Medicare patients, an "age tax" and charging Americans more for pre-existing conditions were specific consequences of parts of those bills, as determined by health care analysts.) Resisting the Affordable Care Act, which President Barack Obama signed into law in 2010, was a persistent theme for the Republican-led Legislature when Diaz served. • In 2011, Diaz co-sponsored a bill to prohibit most individuals from being forced to buy health insurance under the Affordable Care Act’s individual mandate. Although the bill passed, it could not supercede federal law. In a debate on CBS4 Miami Aug. 13, Taddeo attacked Diaz for voting on a bill that "essentially dismantled Obamacare." Diaz responded: "The state cannot dismantle anything so I’m not even sure what that means." • In 2011, Diaz also voted for the "Health Care Freedom Act" bill to put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to ban individuals from being forced to buy insurance or companies from having to provide insurance. Florida voters rejected it in 2012. • In 2012, Diaz voted in favor of a bill to urge Congress to repeal the federal health care law. It passed the Florida House but died in the Senate. • In 2012, Diaz voted for an amendment within an appropriations bill in support of providing funds to challenge the constitutionality of the federal law. (The amendment was essentially a political move -- Attorney General Bill McCollum already sued in 2010 to challenge the federal law and Pam Bondi later took over that effort.) The Democrats offered one piece of evidence from 2017, but it also does not prove Diaz supported any of the repeal proposals. Diaz was one of several Florida lawmakers invited to Washington in February for two days of closed-door meetings with Republican U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio to discuss the Affordable Care Act, flood insurance, water issues and tax reform. After the meetings concluded, Rubio said that "among the issues we discussed, repealing and replacing ObamaCare was a top priority." There is no public record to review whether Diaz mentioned repeal. (The Tampa Bay Times posted a video after the meeting in which Rubio, seated at a table with Diaz and other state lawmakers, spoke on a variety of issues, including his criticism of Obamacare. Diaz did not speak.) In the CBS4 debate, Diaz said during his visit to Washington, D.C. "I did not advocate for anything that had to do with dismantling Obamacare." When we asked Diaz about his position on the repeal and replace efforts, the statement we received didn’t clearly answer if he favored the proposals. He replied that many voters in the district "believe that Obamacare is a failed product" and said if "Obamacare is indeed repealed, we need to ensure that everyone that is currently covered continues to be covered, including pre-existing conditions." Campaign spokesman David Custin pointed to an effort by Diaz to expand health care coverage as a state House member in 2016. Diaz sponsored a bill that allowed eligible children of legal immigrants to apply for the state and federal Kidcare program. The language was folded into another bill that became law. TV ad cites reports about 2017 repeal efforts Before we issue our ruling, we wanted to briefly explain the other points in the ad about the Republican plans to repeal or replace Obamacare in the U.S. House and Senate. While the House narrowly passed a bill in May, the Senate failed to pass a new plan in July before it went on recess. While the GOP health care plan didn’t include explicit changes to Medicare, the legislation could hurt the 11 million low-income Medicare beneficiaries who are dual enrolled in Medicare and Medicaid. These "dual eligibles" would be affected by congressional efforts to cut and cap Medicaid funding, according to the Commonwealth Fund. The so-called "age tax" already exists, although GOP plans would have made it even steeper. Under current law, insurance companies can charge older adults up to three times as much as younger people based on their age. House and Senate bills increased the ratio up to five times. While that change would reduce premiums for younger people, it would increase premiums for older people in that age bracket. The Affordable Care Act included a ban on denying coverage based on pre-existing conditions. The House GOP plan had literal language which said that insurers have to provide access for those with pre-existing conditions, but it didn’t address costs. The legislation would have allowed insurers to set premiums based on the "health status" of individuals -- which would have meant higher costs for sicker patients with pre-existing conditions. One more time: We don’t know Diaz’s position on these bills. Our ruling A Florida Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee TV ad says Diaz supports Trump's "plan to slash Medicare, charge older Americans an age tax and cut coverage for pre-existing conditions." The ad provides no evidence that Diaz, as a state representative and now a state Senate candidate, has taken stances on the efforts in 2017 by Trump and Republicans in the U.S. House and Senate to repeal or replace Obamacare. Instead, the Democrats point to a series of anti-Obamacare votes Diaz took in the state House years ago that ask Congress to repeal the law and declare opposition to the individual mandate. Those votes aren’t mentioned in the ad, and they obviously don’t address support for the 2017 proposals in Congress that analysts said would hurt some Medicare users and lead to higher costs for older adults and people with pre-existing conditions. Votes by Diaz show that he opposed the federal law while in the statehouse, but that’s not what the Democrats’ ad says. We rate this claim Mostly False. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com

Florida Democratic Legislative Campaign Committee

2017-08-14T16:15:27

2017-08-10

['United_States', 'Medicare_(United_States)', 'Donald_Trump']

tron-02538

A.F.A. Calls for a Boycott of Harvey Milk Postage Stamps

truth!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/afa-harvey-milk-stamp/

miscellaneous

A.F.A. Calls for a Boycott of Harvey Milk Postage Stamps

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

snes-00743

Michigan lawmakers proposed a bill to mark immigrants' licenses with a yellow star.

mostly false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michigan-licenses-yellow-stars/

Politics

Kim LaCapria

Are Michigan Lawmakers Marking Immigrants’ Licenses with Yellow Stars?

19 April 2018

['Michigan']

snes-05836

A video clip shows martial arts star Bruce Lee expertly playing ping-pong using nunchaku rather than a paddle.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/bruce-lee-ping-pong/

Fauxtography

David Mikkelson

Bruce Lee Played Ping-Pong with Nunchaku?

27 November 2012

['None']

pomt-10583

He told gay organizers in Massachusetts he would be a stronger advocate for special rights than even Ted Kennedy.

mostly true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/31/john-mccain/pretty-much-yes-but-its-not-special/

A day ahead of the Florida primary, John McCain unleashed an attack on rival Mitt Romney in an automatic phone call to Republican voters. It's identical to something Rudy Giuliani said about Romney when the former New York mayor was still in the race. We examined the Giuliani charge and concluded it was Mostly True. As reported by Politico.com , the McCain robocall is a woman apparently concerned about Romney's social conservative record. A McCain spokesman confirmed for us that the call came from the campaign but did not provide the official text. Here is the transcript of the call courtesy of Politico : "I'm calling with an urgent Mitt Romney [unintelligible]" "We care deeply about traditional values and protecting families. And we need someone who will not waver in the White House: ending abortion, preserving the sanctity of marriage, stopping the trash on the airwaves and attempts to ban God from every corner of society. These issues are core to our being. "Mitt Romney thinks he can fool us. He supported abortion on demand, even allowed a law mandating taxpayer funding for abortion. He says he changed his mind, but he still hasn't changed the law. He told gay organizers in Massachusetts he would be a stronger advocate for special rights than even Ted Kennedy. Now, it's something different. "Unfortunately, on issue after issue Mitt Romney has treated social issues voters as fools, thinking we won't catch on. Sorry, Mitt, we know you aren't trustworthy on the most important issue and you aren't a conservative. "Paid for by John McCain 2008." The statement the the call refers to comes from Romney's 1994 U.S. Senate campaign against Kennedy. During the race, Romney wrote a letter to the Log Cabin Republicans, a group of gay Republicans, thanking them for their support. "For some voters it might be enough for me to simply match my opponent's record in this area," Romney wrote in October 1994. "But I believe we can and must do better. If we are to achieve the goals we share, we must make equality for gays and lesbians a mainstream concern. My opponent cannot do this. I can and will." As with our previous ruling on this same attack, we find it Mostly True. McCain is right that Romney promised to be more supportive of gay rights than Kennedy had been, but he loses some points by using the term "special rights." What Romney actually advocated was equality for gay and lesbian Americans; nothing "special." Yes, it's a small point. But for a politician like McCain, who took such grief over the misuse by his opponents of the term "amnesty" to describe his proposal for illegal immigrants, it's reasonable to expect a little more precision.

John McCain

2008-01-31T00:00:00

2008-01-28

['Massachusetts', 'Ted_Kennedy']

snes-01325

Is this a Real Photograph of Robert Mueller in Vietnam?

miscaptioned

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/robert-mueller-in-vietnam/

Fauxtography

Dan Evon

Is This a Photograph of Robert Mueller in Vietnam?

15 December 2017

['Robert_Mueller']

pomt-02954

Test scores had gone up steadily for 40 years until No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.

mostly false

/rhode-island/statements/2013/oct/27/diane-ravitch/education-critic-diane-ravitch-says-test-scores-we/

Education analyst and professor Diane Ravitch is a harsh critic of many recent trends in education, from high-stakes testing to privately run charter schools. Ravitch supported many of those efforts when she was assistant secretary of education under President George H.W. Bush. But she later concluded they didn’t work. And she has been especially critical of both the 2002 federal No Child Left Behind Act, championed by President George W. Bush, and President Obama’s 2009 Race to the Top grant program. Ravitch offered some of her insights in a speech Oct. 15, 2013, at the University of Rhode Island. Part of her argument is that champions of such so-called reforms are overstating the problem. She said a decades-look back at standardized test scores shows more student improvement than the nation’s public schools get credit for. "Test scores had gone up steadily for 40 years until No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top," she said. We wondered whether scores had increased so steadily and whether, as her statement implies, they leveled off or dropped after the two federal programs took hold. Ravitch told us her 40-year claim was a condensed version of a point she makes at greater length in her new book, "Reign of Error: The Hoax of The Privatization Movement and the Danger to America’s Public Schools." She said that claim is backed up by the results of the National Assessment of Educational Progress Long-Term Trend Assessments, a nationwide standardized test that has been given to students since the early 1970s (From 1997 to 2004, Ravitch was a member of the NAEP Governing Board, which oversees the test.). The NAEP tests are given every few years to 9-year-olds, 13-year-olds and 17-year-olds. The reading part of the test was first administered in 1971 and the math in 1973. Since then, except for a 2004 update, the test has remained substantially unchanged. That constancy has enabled educators to use it as a way to compare student performance year-to-year and even decade-to-decade. "NAEP is the only gauge of change over time," Ravitch wrote in "Reign of Error." That brings us to the time period Ravitch was using. She cited a steady trend over 40 years, until the No Child Left Behind Act and Race to the Top. The time spans are actually 32 and 38 years, respectively. No Child Left Behind was implemented in 2003. We made that the end point for our examination, because it’s the first marker Ravitch cited and because the act made more sweeping changes and has been in effect longer. Our beginning points were 1971, when the NAEP reading test was first administered, and 1973, when the math test began. Test scores for the periods are found in "NAEP 2008 Trend in Academic Progress", published by the U.S. Education Department’s National Center for Educational Statistics. From 1971 through 2004 -- the closest test date to No Child Left Behind -- average reading scores did go up overall, except for the oldest students. In 1971, 9-year-olds had an average score of 208; in 2004, their average score was 219, a gain of 11 points. For 13-year-olds, the average score went from 255 in 1971 to 259 in 2004, a gain of 4 points. The 1971 and 2004 scores for 17-year-olds were identical: 285. Math scores also went up from 1973 through 2004. Again, scores of younger students showed bigger improvement: 9-year-olds scored 219 in 1973 and 241 in 2004, a gain of 22. Thirteen year-olds scored 266 in 1973 and 281 in 2004, a gain of 15. The increase for 17-year-olds was only 4 points over that period, from 304 to 307. Somewhat contrary to what Ravitch claimed, not all the math and reading scores increases went up steadily. There were a few small dips along the way, although the overall trend was up. Then there’s the word "until" in Ravitch’s statement. It implies that the rising trend stopped or reversed after No Child Left Behind. In fact, according to the 2012 Nation’s Report Card, the increases continued for nearly all age groups through 2012, the most recent testing period. In reading, scores increased 2 points for 9-year-olds, 4 points for 13-year-olds and 2 points for 17-year-olds. In math, scores increased 3 points for 9-year-olds and 4 points for 13-year-olds. They decreased by 1 point for 17-year-olds. Our ruling Education critic Diane Ravitch said, "Test scores had gone up steadily for 40 years until No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top." There are a few problems with her statement. First, the time spans for the scores she cites are 32 and 38 years, not 40. Second, while the scores increased overall, there were a few dips. And for 17-year-olds, the overall increases were insignificant. Finally, despite her implication that the increases stopped after No Child Left Behind, scores actually rose for all age groups in 2008 and for nearly all in 2012, the next two testing periods. Because Ravitch’s statement contains some element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, the judges rate it Mostly False.

Diane Ravitch

2013-10-27T00:01:00

2013-10-15

['None']

pomt-03169

The number of African-American men in prison has increased fivefold since he left office.

mostly true

/georgia/statements/2013/sep/06/jimmy-carter/carter-cites-number-argue-kings-dream-not-reality/

Former President Jimmy Carter joined tens of thousands of Americans last week to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington and its leader, the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. Carter reflected on the progress America has made since 1963 to achieve King’s dream of racial and economic equality. But Carter, a former Georgia governor, spoke about some issues he believes would pain King, a fellow Georgian. Carter said one trouble spot would be the number of African-American men in prison. Carter included some specifics that made us curious about whether they were accurate. "I think we all know how Dr. King would have reacted to having more than 835,000 African-American men in prison, five times as many as when I left office," Carter told the massive crowd on the National Mall. Carter continued by saying about one-third of black men are "destined to be in prison in their lifetimes," a statistic frequently cited in news reports. PolitiFact Georgia wondered whether the number of black men in prison had increased that much since Carter left the White House. We thought we’d do some research, considering the speech was broadcast live and Carter’s statistics have since been widely reported in various news outlets. When Carter left the White House in January 1981, the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics reported there were 160,442 black men in American prisons. That was nearly the same amount as the number of white men in prison (183,202), although at that time there were more than seven times as many white men as black men in the U.S. The number of black men in the United States increased by more than 45 percent between 1980 and 2010, U.S. Census figures show, from 12.5 million to 18.2 million. Their incarceration rates have been a constant subject of consternation and conversation among many civil rights activists, conservatives and criminologists. One often-repeated claim is that there are more black men in prison than in college. The most recent statistics suggest that assertion is false. Ivory Toldson, an associate professor at Howard University, talked about such claims earlier this year during an interview with NPR, citing numbers that support Carter’s claim concerning how many African-American men are currently in prison. Toldson pointed us to a table from a June 2010 U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics report that said about 841,000 African-American men were in prison or in jail in 2009. An estimated 694,000 white men were in prison or jail that year. That is nearly four times the total number of white men in prison or jail in 1981. Carter, too, based his claim on that report, said Steven Hochman, the director of research for the former president. Case closed? Not entirely. A BJS statistician cautioned us that the number of African-Americans in prison may be misleading as some inmates could be counted twice. For example, a person who served part of the year in jail and part of the year in prison might be counted as two inmates -- one while incarcerated in a local jail, another after a transfer to prison. At the end of 2011, the BJS reported about 555,300 African-American men in state and federal prisons. In 2011, the BJS reported that about 276,400 African-Americans were in local jails. There was no breakdown for how many prisoners in local jails were men. Typically, about 90 percent of incarcerated inmates, regardless of race, are men, BJS statistics show. We must also note another point. Many law enforcement officials will point out that there is a difference between a prison and a jail. "Jails are designed to house people awaiting trial," said Terry Norris, executive director of the Georgia Sheriffs’ Association. Prisons, Norris said, were created to house people once they’re sentenced. Norris noted that some people still sit in county jails after being sentenced, due to a variety of issues, including prison overcrowding. In August, 6 percent of state-sentenced inmates were housed in county jails, according to numbers compiled by the Georgia Department of Community Affairs. The percentage of state-sentenced inmates in county jails was as high as 13 percent in 2009. Norris believes the percentage will decrease in the future as a result of the state’s recent changes to the criminal justice system. Georgia has removed the mandatory minimum sentencing requirement in some limited cases involving nonviolent offenders. To sum up, Carter said in a speech that the number of African-American men in prison has increased fivefold since he left office in 1981. Carter would have been more accurate if he had said "incarcerated" instead of "prison" because his count included inmates in jail. In 1981, the number of black men incarcerated was about 160,000. A 2010 federal report said it was 841,000. Federal officials have cautioned that some of those inmates in the 2010 report may have been counted twice. The BJS reported that about 555,300 African-American men were in state and federal prisons as of 2011. That’s about 3.5 times as many as when Carter left office. But if you add in jail inmates -- prisoners awaiting trial and serving sentences locally -- you approach Carter’s numbers. Carter’s overall point is that the number of African-American men incarcerated has increased substantially since he left office. He’s right about that. But you have to include some context to get the whole picture. We rate Carter’s statement Mostly True.

Jimmy Carter

2013-09-06T00:00:00

2013-08-28

['None']

tron-02553

Snopes.com is a secret tool of the Democratic party to promote Barack Obama

fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/snopes/

miscellaneous

Snopes.com is a secret tool of the Democratic party to promote Barack Obama

Mar 17, 2015

['Democratic_Party_(United_States)']

vees-00205

VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Online post recycles "most stupid politician" comment of Duterte vs Pangilinan

none

http://verafiles.org/articles/vera-files-fact-check-online-post-misleads-recycling-most-st

fake news,misleading

VERA FILES FACT CHECK: Online post MISLEADS by recycling "most stupid politician" comment of Duterte vs Pangilinan

May 14, 2018

['None']

farg-00424

Speaker of the House, Paul Ryan, broke campaign finance laws.

no evidence

https://www.factcheck.org/2018/05/paul-ryan-didnt-violate-campaign-finance-laws/

fake-news

FactCheck.org

Saranac Hale Spencer

['Congressional Leadership Fund', 'campaign finance laws']

No Evidence Ryan Violated Campaign Finance Laws

May 17, 2018

2018-05-17 14:46:00 UTC

['None']

pomt-01252

Says Obama's net neutrality proposal "puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered."

half-true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/nov/13/ted-cruz/cruz-net-neutrality-regulations-put-government-cha/

Net neutrality is the "biggest regulatory threat to the Internet," according to Sen. Ted Cruz. Cruz took to social media to denounce a policy from President Barack Obama on Nov. 10 that was seen as a big step in favor of net neutrality. Obama said he wanted "the strongest possible rules to protect net neutrality." Cruz called the proposal "Obamacare for the Internet" on Twitter, and he got more specific in his complaint on Facebook. We wanted to fact-check if net neutrality would in fact put the government in charge of "determining Internet pricing, terms of service, and what types of products and services can be delivered." We found that Cruz is mostly talking about a slippery slope. With Obama’s proposed rules, the Federal Communications Commission could theoretically impose regulations on Internet prices and products -- but the scope of those regulations would be limited. And Obama specifically called on the FCC not to regulate Internet prices. For us, Cruz’s statement conjured images of FCC officials sitting around a table and drafting household Internet service plans. That’s not what Obama is proposing. What is net neutrality? First, a quick primer on net neutrality, which is a pretty complicated topic. The New York Times’ Upshot framed the issue well, comparing it with the difference between electricity and cable TV. For electricity, people pay a monthly bill, the electricity comes into the house, and they use the electricity however they see fit, using whatever electrical devices they want. These same people pay a monthly bill for cable television, but the cable company gets to pick out the channels for the cable packages. These packages are often constructed based on financial agreements between the cable provider and the TV channels. Supporters of net neutrality think Internet service should operate like electricity. Consumers pay a fee to an Internet service provider (like Comcast and Verizon), and they get equal access to the whole Internet -- every website, big and small -- without any interference from the service providers. But this isn’t possible without some government regulation. The FCC makes the final call on how the government regulates the Internet, and the agency is in the process of designing regulations, after a federal appeals court struck down standing FCC net neutrality protection rules in January. Some Internet service providers, however, don’t want this kind of government regulation. Regulations would stop Internet service providers from entering into financial arrangements that would give particular websites prioritized access to Internet users (kind of like cable companies’ arrangements with cable channels). For example, Netflix has a financial agreement with Comcast so that the video streaming website will have better access to customers. Proponents of net neutrality worry that if this trend continues, websites that are able and willing to pay Internet service providers for prioritized access to consumers would have an unfair advantage over smaller operations or startups. In order to stop this trend and protect net neutrality, Obama said the FCC should "reclassify" Internet service providers as common carriers under Title II of the Telecommunications Act, meaning they would be treated as public utilities, such as phone service. Currently, the Internet is classified as an "information service," which greatly limits how much the FCC can regulate it. Under the common carrier classification, however, Internet service providers would not be allowed to give advantages to particular websites. Cruz and other critics of Obama’s proposal think reclassification would create a lot of red tape for Internet service providers. We asked Cruz’s staff for evidence to back up his claim, and they noted some potential impact of Obama’s net neutrality proposal -- pointing to studies that said more Internet regulation could harm the economy and kill jobs. "The president’s call for the FCC to designate the Internet a public utility means that the five unelected bureaucrats at the FCC will become the arbiters of pricing, terms of service, and types of products delivered," said Cruz spokeswoman Catherine Frazier. "This changes a relentlessly innovative and growing part of our economy into one that must wait for permission for any new ideas." It’s a bit more nuanced, though. Prices In theory, Title II would give the FCC some say over Internet service providers’ prices. However, Obama urged the FCC to also adopt a forbearance against price regulation. A forbearance is a legal way of choosing not to enforce part of the law that is unnecessary or irrelevant. "I believe the FCC should reclassify consumer broadband service under Title II of the Telecommunications Act — while at the same time forbearing from rate regulation and other provisions less relevant to broadband services," Obama said. But let’s talk about what would happen if the FCC reclassified Internet service providers under Title II without that forbearance, just for kicks. Under Title II, the FCC is authorized to "determine and prescribe" charges. However, this does not mean that the agency would decide what prices should be and force companies to abide by them. What would happen is that Internet service providers would set their own prices, and the FCC would intervene if it thinks those prices are "unjust or unreasonable." The idea is that if a service provider is the only operator in an area, it should not be able to hike up consumer costs unreasonably, knowing the consumers don’t have access to a cheaper option. Even this limited level of price regulation likely wouldn’t be sustainable, said Harold Feld, senior vice president of Public Knowledge, an open Internet advocacy group. The FCC doesn’t enforce price regulations for other Title II services, like mobile phones and land lines, and has had trouble defending price caps in court. "As a practical matter, that’s totally not going to happen," Feld said. Brent Skorup, a telecommunications research fellow at George Mason University’s Mercatus Center and an opponent of net neutrality regulations, said he thinks Cruz’s statement is fair, because of the authority Title II gives the FCC. But he agreed that any price regulation would likely be "short lived" because of Obama’s call for a forbearance and precedent concerning other Title II services. Products and terms of service If Internet service is reclassified under Title II, the FCC would have limited authority over the products that Internet service providers can offer. Like the pricing issue, this isn’t to say that FCC officials would draft up Internet service packages that a service provider would have to offer consumers -- the companies would still do that themselves. But if an Internet service provider offers a product that gives undue advantage to particular websites, the FCC could stop them -- and the FCC would decide what constitutes an undue advantage. In this case, the "product" would be an Internet service package that involves giving particular websites paid prioritization. For the most part, experts we spoke with said this would be -- to some degree -- government oversight of a particular product. Supporters of Obama’s proposal, though, said Cruz mischaracterizes the extent of government control. Feld described it this way: The rules are such that the FCC wouldn’t be able to stop an Internet service provider from offering a particular product unless that particular product (in this case paid prioritization) prevents other companies from having a fair shot at reaching that consumer. Evan Engstrom, policy director of tech advocacy group Engine, said the regulations aren’t about dictating what products a company can offer -- they’re about preventing "egregious market abuses." Saying net neutrality means government regulation of products and services is "like saying laws against extortion put the government in charge of determining what sorts of ‘protection services’ the Mafia can offer," Engstrom said. Feld noted that even under Title II, it’s possible that an Internet service provider could find a way to offer products with paid prioritization anyway. Like Obama’s proposed forbearance against price regulation, Feld said it would be possible for an Internet service provider to petition the FCC for a forbearance against blocking a particular product. Our ruling Cruz said, Obama’s net neutrality proposal "puts the government in charge of determining Internet pricing, terms of service and what types of products and services can be delivered." While theoretically possible, Obama said specifically that he does not want the FCC to regulate Internet prices, and the FCC typically does not regulate prices for similar things, such as telephone services. In terms of product offerings, the proposal would allow the FCC to prevent Internet service providers from giving certain websites priority over others. But Cruz’s statement conjures an image of FCC officials sitting around a table designing Internet service packages and their prices, and this is not what Obama is proposing. We rate Cruz’s claim Half True.

Ted Cruz

2014-11-13T14:59:06

2014-11-10

['None']

pomt-08899

For every $1 spent on afterschool programs, "we can save over $5, almost $6, in crime costs down the line."

half-true

/rhode-island/statements/2010/jul/30/peter-kilmartin/kilmartin-claims-1-spent-afterschool-programs-save/

During a speech seeking the endorsement of the state Democratic Party in his race for attorney general, lawyer and former police officer Rep. Peter Kilmartin promised to work hard to prevent crime as well as prosecute it. "It's about the attorney general, when I'm attorney general, advocating and increasing afterschool programming for children," he said. "For every dollar we can invest and parlay from private charitable foundations and the federal government, we can save over $5, almost $6, in crime costs down the line." Sounds like a good investment. But claims based on the so-called multiplier effect always make us suspicious. While they often have the ring of authority, they are sometimes based on a pile of assumptions. We wondered where Kilmartin got his numbers. His spokesman, Brett Broesder, quickly produced a copy of "A Report to the Legislature: Rhode Island Afterschool and Summer Learning Program Act" released in May by the Rhode Island Department of Elementary and Secondary Education. The report, which argues for financing afterschool and summer programs for at-risk children and youth, says in two places: "For every one dollar invested in expanded learning opportunities, there is a savings of up to $5.29 in decreased criminal justice costs." The RIDE report said the savings come in "criminal justice costs," which we took to mean the costs incurred by the police, courts and corrections departments. "Crime costs," the term used by Kilmartin, would also include the broader costs to the victims and their families, both tangible and intangible. When we looked into the RIDE number, our suspicions were confirmed. The RIDE report says its information came from a 2001 analysis from the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, a 174-page examination that tries to assess how much various social programs cost and how much they would save the state of Washington over the long term. It's clear from Page 15 that the $5.29 figure comes with some significant caveats, none of which were mentioned by RIDE in its pitch for more money: * The Washington analysis is based on just two studies of mentoring programs conducted outside the criminal justice system, one run by Big Brothers Big Sisters of America. The Big Brothers study never documented a drop in the crime rate as a result of mentoring; instead it asked participants for the number of times they hit someone. From that, the Washington researchers estimated that the two mentoring programs reduced the crime rate among participants by 4 percent. * The Washington analysis estimated that there was no direct benefit to the taxpayers from the mentoring programs when they looked at how much would be saved in decreased criminal justice costs. "Overall, taxpayers just break-even for this investment," the authors concluded. In other words, even though the RIDE report used the qualifying statement "up to $5.29," which technically covers every dollar estimate down to zero, it strikes us that RIDE misstated the findings. Twice. So where does the $5.29 figure come from? The Washington authors factored in their estimates of the costs of compensating victims of a crime, including the cost of lost quality of life. (Sample costs that they used: $8,734 for robbery victims and $3,137,793 for murder victims.) The authors then plugged in several other numbers -- including the $1,054 cost of mentoring one person and their estimate of the cost of the crimes that mentoring prevented -- to arrive at $5.29. Fortunately for Kilmartin, his mischaracterization of RIDE's conclusion (saying a $1 investment reduces "crime costs" instead of "decreasing criminal justice costs") makes his characterization of the Washington analysis more accurate than RIDE's. Steve Aos, director of the Washington State Institute for Public Policy, said citing the 2001 analysis in 2010 -- instead of a later update -- would be like investing in the stock market today using investment advice given in 2001. The most recent analysis, from 2004, estimates that society saves $3.28 for every dollar spent, not $5.29. If a mentoring program uses paid workers instead of volunteers, according to Aos, "the program breaks even." We contacted RIDE spokesman Elliot Krieger to ask why the department cited an outdated study and failed to alert the legislature to some significant caveats. The department responded that "we are not persuaded" that the 2004 study refutes or negates the 2001 analysis. "There are obviously many studies examining the value of afterschool programs, using many different methodologies, assumptions, and definitions. Experts in the field are free to debate the validity of the various methodologies. RIDE cited several studies in the report on afterschool and summer-learning programs. All were cited accurately and properly footnoted to enable readers to check the sources." Well, the one cited source we checked -- because it impressed Kilmartin -- turned out to be a study that RIDE misrepresented. Kilmartin was quoting a report he thought he could trust. So we'll give him a Half True.

Peter Kilmartin

2010-07-30T00:01:00

2010-06-28

['None']

snes-00221

ESPN aired a graphic listing porn star Johnny Sins as a Little League baseball player's favorite actor.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/little-leaguer-porn-star/

Fauxtography

Dan Evon

Did a Little Leaguer List a Porn Star as His Favorite Actor?

14 August 2018

['Little_League_Baseball']

snes-02824

A Japanese man was found dead months after being crushed by huge pile of pornography.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/japanese-man-pile-pornography-crushed-killed/

Uncategorized

Megan Alpert

Was a Japanese Man Crushed to Death by a Pile of Pornography?

6 March 2017

['Japan']

wast-00017

I have thought about this, Senator. There was nothing out of the ordinary of what Senate staffs would tell us or what we would hear from our legislative affairs folks. That said, I cannot tell you whether something that he said at some point, directly or indirectly, derived from his knowledge that may have come from these documents. I just cannot speak to that at all. I can say, in direct response to your question, that, no, I never suspected anything untoward.

3 pinnochios

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/20/brett-kavanaughs-unlikely-story-about-democrats-stolen-documents/

Brett M. Kavanaugh

Salvador Rizzo

Brett Kavanaugh's unlikely story about Democrats' stolen documents

September 20

['None']

snes-05976

A photograph shows a suicide victim stepping off the Eiffel Tower.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eiffel-tower-suicide/

Fauxtography

David Mikkelson

Eiffel Tower Suicide

17 November 2009

['None']

vogo-00399

Fact Check TV: Dumanis and Sanders

none

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-tv-dumanis-and-sanders/

Fact Check TV: Dumanis and Sanders

April 25, 2011

['None']

goop-01919

Kourtney Kardashian, Younes Bendjima Eloping In “Hush-Hush Wedding

1

https://www.gossipcop.com/kourtney-kardashian-not-eloping-younes-bendjima-secret-wedding/

Shari Weiss

Kourtney Kardashian, Younes Bendjima NOT Eloping In “Hush-Hush Wedding”

9:59 am, January 3, 2018

['None']

goop-01045

Katie Holmes Hiding Baby Bump?

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/katie-holmes-baby-bump-pregnant/

Andrew Shuster

Katie Holmes Hiding Baby Bump?

12:22 pm, May 7, 2018

['None']

pomt-06452

We buy 35 percent of all Chinese exports.

half-true

/ohio/statements/2011/oct/20/sherrod-brown/sherrod-brown-says-35-percent-chinas-exports-land-/

Bipartisan legislating has not left the Senate. Strong support from both sides of the aisle brought passage this month (Oct. 11) of the Currency Exchange Rate Oversight Reform Act of 2011 -- legislation designed to address China's undervaluation of its currency and consequent trade advantage. The bill was sponsored and introduced by Ohio Democrat Sherrod Brown and supported by Ohio Republican Rob Portman, both of whom have acknowledged expertise on trade: Brown wrote a book on it ("Myths of Free Trade"), and Portman served a year as U.S. Trade Representative. The legislation could lead to higher tariffs on Chinese imports that supporters say are priced artificially low. At a news conference after its 63-35 passage, Brown called it "the largest bipartisan jobs bill" to win approval in many months. Opponents said they feared the legislation could spark a trade war with China at a time when the U.S. economy is already weak. Brown responded: "Ohio workers and Ohio manufacturers already know that we are, in fact, in a trade war, and the Chinese have done very well, thank you. "The reason that this won't start the kind of trade war where the Chinese start being more aggressive even than they have been is we buy 35 percent of all Chinese exports," he said. "They can't go to a trade war with a country that is such an important customer to them." The claim that more than one-third of China’s exports are sold in U.S. markets got PolitiFact Ohio’s attention. We decided to take a look. Brown’s communications director, Meghan Dubyak, immediately told us that Brown "misspoke when he said 35 percent. The figure is closer to 25 percent." She referred us to the most recent statistics from the World Trade Organization. They show that China's exports totaled $1.2 trillion in 2009, and the U.S. imported $310 billion of them, or 26 percent. We looked further and found statistics from the U.S.-China Business Council, the U.S. International Trade Commission and the U.S Trade Representative that also showed the U.S. accounting for roughly 25 percent of Chinese exports. They showed that the United States is China's largest export market by a wide margin, spending about 30 percent more than second-ranked Hong Kong, more than twice as much as third-ranked Japan and buying more than four times the volume of fourth-place South Korea. The United States buys more than the next six countries in the top 10 combined. By coincidence, we found that Portman made a slip of the tongue several months ago while discussing trade with China, just a Brown did here. We rated that claim Half True and said then that his underlying point remained. In this case, Brown gave an incorrect number for the U.S. percentage of Chinese exports, which his staff readily pointed it out and corrected. Regardless of that slip, he is correct that the United States is China’s top export destination. A one-quarter share is not as hefty as a one third share would be, but either way, the United States remains the most significant market for Chinese exports. But while PolitiFact Ohio isn’t looking to play Gotcha!, a key tenet is that words matter. In this case, Brown’s number is nearly 30 percent greater than the correct figure. On the Truth-O-Meter, we rate his statement Half True.

Sherrod Brown

2011-10-20T06:00:00

2011-10-12

['China']

tron-03643

Gangs Using Children to Lure Victims

fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/gang-rape-warning/

warnings

Gangs Using Children to Lure Victims

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

snes-04368

After the 26 July 2016 roll call vote at the Democratic National Convention, hundreds of empty seats appeared to have been vacated by a planned protest.

mixture

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/dnc-walkout-leads-to-hundreds-of-empty-seats/

Politics

Kim LaCapria

DNC Walkout Leads to Hundreds of Empty Seats?

27 July 2016

['None']

pomt-14412

Republican Bob Donovan has "run as a Republican time and again."

half-true

/wisconsin/statements/2016/mar/11/tom-barrett/milwaukee-mayor-tom-barrett-says-challenger-bob-do/

Polarized though they be, if Wisconsin Democrats and Republicans agree on anything, it’s that Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is a nice guy. Yet more than a month ahead of the April 5, 2016 mayoral election, it was Barrett who leveled a double-barreled personal attack on his challenger, Milwaukee Ald. Bob Donovan. After being targeted himself by radio advertisements from an outside group, Barrett responded by airing two radio ads hitting Donovan. In one of the ads, the former Democratic state lawmaker and congressman ties Donovan to GOP Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker and GOP presidential frontrunner Donald Trump. In a city that is heavily Democratic, Barrett essentially uses Republican as a dirty word. "Donovan’s run as a Republican time and again," a female narrator says partway into the ad. "And Donovan sided with Scott Walker and the Republicans in the state Legislature when they’ve tried to hurt Milwaukee." The ad closes with: "Republican Donovan -- Donald Trump erratic behavior, Scott Walker ideas. He’d be a disaster for Milwaukee." Mayor and aldermen are nonpartisan offices in Milwaukee. And though Donovan is generally considered conservative, he hasn't readily been identified with a political party. So let’s check both parts of Barrett’s claim: Has Donovan run "time and again" as a Republican and is he a Republican now? Early 1980s Even many people familiar with Milwaukee politics don't know that in 1982 and 1983, Donovan ran as a Republican for a Milwaukee seat in the state Assembly. Both times, he was unopposed in the GOP primary and lost to the Democratic candidate in the general election. Donovan was a 26-year-old shift foreman for Milwaukee Solvay Coke in 1982 when he made his first run for public office. He was chairman of the South Side Republican Club. The Milwaukee Sentinel editorial board recommended Donovan, saying he "has a zest for public office that seems missing" in first-term incumbent Joe Czarnezki, but Czarnezki won. Czarnezki then went on to win a state Senate seat, causing the need for a special election in 1983 to fill the Assembly slot. Donovan lost that race Peggy Krusick. At that time, Donovan was still chairman of the local GOP club and worked as a security guard at Southridge mall. As alderman, Donovan has reached out to Walker and state Republican lawmakers, particularly when it comes to clashing with Barrett over issues such as crime in Milwaukee. And he announced his mayoral run on conservative talk radio. On the other hand, we could not find that Donovan has made any contributions to any state candidates -- of either party. And Barrett’s campaign couldn’t cite any evidence that Donovan currently is a Republican -- instead pointing to a November 2013 profile and arguing Donovan simply wants to avoid the label to maintain his ability to win in Milwaukee. "I ran as a Republican in Milwaukee County," Donovan told Milwaukee Magazine. "That will give you an indication of how incredibly naive politically I was at the time." The article also said Donovan "eventually conceded that being labeled a Republican could count against him in some voters’ eyes, even in a nonpartisan race." But it also quotes Donovan as saying he was no longer a Republican, and instead calling himself "a proud nonpartisan." And it quotes a Milwaukee County GOP spokesman as saying he had never seen the alderman at any Republican event in the past 20 years. Donovan’s campaign spokesman, Steve Schumacher, told us Donovan hasn’t been a member of any party since shortly after his second run for the Assembly. Schumacher said Donovan "wouldn’t shy away from ‘conservative,’" as a label, but he is independent and not beholden to either party. Our rating Barrett says "Republican Bob Donovan" has "run as a Republican time and again." Donovan identifies as a conservative, but there’s no evidence he is currently a Republican, or a member of any party. The "time and again" is accurate if perhaps misleading, in that Donovan twice ran as a Republican for the state Assembly in the 1980s. For a statement that is partially accurate, our rating is Half True.

Tom Barrett

2016-03-11T05:00:00

2016-03-07

['Republican_Party_(United_States)']

hoer-00633

Bear Grylls Producer Snakebite Foot Injury Picture

true messages

https://www.hoax-slayer.com/bear-grylls-producer-snake-bite.shtml

Brett M. Christensen

Bear Grylls Producer Snakebite Foot Injury Picture

May 7, 2013

['None']

hoer-00969

Win a Ford Raptor Facebook Survey

facebook scams

https://www.hoax-slayer.net/win-a-ford-raptor-facebook-survey-scam/

Brett M. Christensen

Win a Ford Raptor Facebook Survey Scam

May 21, 2018

['None']

hoer-00863

Charging a Mobile Phone with Peepal Leaves

unsubstantiated messages

https://www.hoax-slayer.com/peepal-leave-phone-charge.shtml

Brett M. Christensen

Charging a Mobile Phone with Peepal Leaves

September 11, 2013

['None']

snes-00653

President Trump has scrapped plans for constructing a wall along the U.S.-Mexico border in favor of a proposal for a dome.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/trump-border-dome/

Junk News

David Mikkelson

Did President Trump Scrap Plans for a Border Wall in Favor of a Dome?

6 May 2018

['None']

vogo-00583

Fact Check TV: A True, a False and a Misleading

none

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-tv-a-true-a-false-and-a-misleading/

Fact Check TV: A True, a False and a Misleading

May 17, 2010

['None']

pomt-06898

Active duty males in the military are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than their civilian counterparts.

mostly true

/florida/statements/2011/jul/26/cliff-stearns/cliff-stearns-pushing-research-funding-says-milita/

War, needless to say, is fraught with danger — bullets flying, bombs exploding. But one Florida congressman recently targeted a silent killer that attacks soldiers from within. Rep. Cliff Stearns recently sought — and received — House approval to shift $16 million in Pentagon funding to beef up research for prostate cancer for military members. The Ocala Republican pointed out in a press release that prostate cancer was the second-leading cause of cancer-related death among American men. No argument there. After all, according to the American Cancer Society, only skin cancer is more common than prostate cancer among American men. And only lung cancer kills more of those sufferers. What caught our attention, though, was Stearns’ follow-up assertion: "In addition," he said, "active duty males in the military are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than their civilian counterparts." Twice as likely? Really? We asked Stearns’ office about the congressman’s sources, and spokesman Paul Flusche provided a trio of publications. One looked at how Agent Orange might have caused a spike in prostate cancer rates among Vietnam War vets. Another focused on prostate cancer rates strictly among Air Force personnel. The third, which Flusche labeled as the "most important" in supporting Stearns’ claim, was conducted by a team of scientists who compared the rates at which a variety of cancers, including prostate cancer, strike soldiers relative to civilians. That study, conducted by the U.S. Military Cancer Institute, or USMCI, at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, was led by Dr. Kangmin Zhu. Zhu’s team actually reviewed six types of cancer — breast, lung, prostate, colorectal, testicular and cervical — for soldiers ages 20 to 59. The data they studied covered from 1990 to 2004. For prostate cancer, the study population included 910 soldiers and 42,751 civilians. In some instances, such as with testicular cancer, there were no differences in the rate of occurrence between the military and civilian populations, the report said. But Zhu and his colleagues, based on their analysis of the numbers, concluded: "Prostate cancer rates in the military were twice those in the general population." So Stearns is citing a verifiable statistic contained in a reputable story. The natural question, of course, is why would military members be more prone to prostate cancer? The Zhu study could only speculate. For instance, researchers found discrepancies between military and civilian healthcare providers in how cancer incidents are reported, which could explain at least part of the difference. Zhu also hypothesized that better and more frequent health screening for soldiers might explain why prostate cancer is more prevalent among U.S. troops. Exposure to depleted uranium also might account for the results. But Zhu ultimately said that he could not determine a reason and suggested further study. We ran the findings by Dr. Jonathan Simons, president and CEO of the Prostate Cancer Foundation, a Santa Monica, Calif.-based philanthropic organization that has raised roughly $450 million and helped fund 1,500 researchers at 200 institutions in 12 countries. (The foundation was not connected to Zhu’s work.) Simons observed that Zhu’s mission was not to find why military members seemed more likely to get prostate cancer, but to simply crunch the numbers. In that context, Simons said Stearns was "absolutely correct" and justified in stating that military personnel were twice as likely as civilian men to contract prostate cancer. For one thing, Simons noted, "This is not the junior varsity that did the work. These are really top people." Still, Simons cautioned that the potential for drawing a "false correlation" existed -- namely that military members are more likely to get prostate cancer than non-military members. If military service meant a greater risk of developing cancer, then one would expect soldiers to exhibit higher rates of the disease across the board, Simons said. That was not the case here. Yet he reiterated that much more research into prostate cancer occurrences among soldiers was necessary to determine whether the findings were a "fluke" or if there was a definite connection — and if so, what might cause it. And that, Simons observed, was Stearns’ goal in pushing for more funding. "I actually compliment Representative Stearns for elevating it," Simons said. "Congressman Stearns did a really important bit of public health policy here." Back to Stearns’ comment. In pushing for $16 million in Pentagon funding to beef up research for prostate cancer for military members, he said that "active duty males in the military are twice as likely to develop prostate cancer than their civilian counterparts." Stearns is correct that research shows that military members are diagnosed with prostate cancer at twice the rate as non-military members. However, that same research doesn’t conclude that military members are twice as likely to "develop" prostate cancer as Stearns said. The study hypothesizes that one reason for the different diagnosis rate may be because military members are subject to more frequent health screenings. Getting to the bottom of the discrepancy is actually why Stearns requested the money. That’s a needed clarification when considering Stearns’ comment. We rate his statement Mostly True.

Cliff Stearns

2011-07-26T15:55:33

2011-07-06

['None']

snes-05058

Photographs show an attempted robbery in El Paso, Texas, that ended with all of the assailants shot by their would-be victim.

miscaptioned

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/el-paso-gun-battle/

Uncategorized

Brooke Binkowski

El Paso Gun Battle

15 March 2016

['El_Paso,_Texas', 'Texas']

pomt-12496

There's no real evidence in the last 20 years that growth from tax cuts has made up lost revenue.

true

/punditfact/statements/2017/apr/28/rana-foroohar/trumps-tax-plan-prompts-question-can-tax-cuts-real/

The Trump administration unveiled a one-page list of tax reform principles inspired by the theory that tax cuts can unleash enough economic growth to cover lost revenue. President George H.W. Bush famously derided this as "voodoo economics," and present-day critics are no less dismissive of what they see as magical thinking by the White House. "The Trump administration will say, 'Well, hey, tax cuts are going to create growth, growth is going to create revenue, that's going to offset all this deficit,'" Rana Foroohar, a CNN economic analyst and Financial Times columnist, told CNN April 26. "Well, there's no real evidence in the last 20 years that that has happened." We decided to investigate this claim. First, the big changes under the White House proposal: the business tax rate drops from 35 to 15 percent for both big and small corporations alike, personal income tax brackets go from seven brackets to three (10, 25, and 35 percent), and the so-called standard deduction -- the amount of personal income not subject to federal income tax -- will be doubled, while some other deductions are removed. There’s isn’t much more detail than that, making it difficult to put a price tag on the proposal. The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, or CRFB, attempted to analyze the one-pager’s potential effect on the debt, making a lot of assumptions along the way. Their best guess, which was quickly eaten up by Trump’s critics on TV, was an increase to the debt of $5.5 trillion, or somewhere between $3 trillion to $7 trillion. There’s other ways to offset tax cuts than economic growth: you can raise rates on other taxes, like through a tax on imports, as House Republicans want. Or you can limit tax breaks, cut spending, or do some combination of these, and it’s certainly possible the Trump administration will explore these options. A White House fact sheet by chief economic advisor Gary Cohn on April 26 did make a passing reference to nixing some tax breaks for the wealthy. But the administration has offered no specifics on paying for the cuts, and as of April 20 Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin was still insisting, "The deal will pay for itself." So let’s set aside for now the other ways the administration may seek to offset lost revenue from tax cuts. For Trump’s tax cuts to pay for themselves, the economy would have to grow by $5.5 trillion, or roughly a sustained 4.5 percent, for the next 10 years, according to CRFB. That’s a mark that any president is unlikely to hit. Trump promised during the campaign to have 4 percent growth per year. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin has since said the target is 3 percent growth. In reality, the average annual growth rate since 2001 has been 1.8 percent, according to Vox. Most experts we interviewed concurred with Foroohar that the idea that tax cuts could spur the level of growth needed is not realistic. One economist went further than Foroohar, noting that steep tax cuts may actually impede economic growth. Several experts cautioned that isolating tax cuts as the sole cause of whatever economic conditions are to follow is more than a little tricky, since good or bad economic conditions can coincide with tax cuts and affect federal revenue. Another caveat is that tax cuts can be manipulated to look as if they’re boosting growth when they’re really not -- as we’ve shown before. While tax cuts don’t pay for themselves fully, tax cuts can generate some growth. For instance, take a 2005 study by the Congressional Budget Office that asked what would happen if Americans got a 10 percent income tax cut. Under CBO’s most optimistic projection, nearly one-third of the tax cut would be offset by additional tax revenue over 10 years. (We’ll get to their pessimistic projection soon.) N. Gregory Mankiw, a Harvard University economist and former chairman of the President’s Council of Economic Advisers under George W. Bush, shared a similar view. "A reasonable rule of thumb, in my judgment, is that about one-third of the cost of tax cuts is recouped via faster economic growth," Mankiw said. Edward Kleinbard, a professor of law and business at the University of Southern California, said smart corporate tax reform could stimulate the economy somewhat -- but at a net loss. "A really well-designed corporate tax reform package, including a rate cut, would be accretive to growth," he said, "but not enough to pay for any resulting large-scale deficits." So tax cuts can create some growth, according to the experts. But are there any historical cases of tax cuts producing so much growth they fully pay for themselves? "I am not aware of any credible evidence (in the U.S.) over the last several decades of a broad-based tax cut paying for itself," said Alan Auerbach, an economist at the University of California, Berkeley. "I don't think this is at all controversial among actual economists." Kleinbard was similarly emphatic: "There is no time in modern history where tax cuts could be said to pay for themselves." According to Kleinbard, the 1981 tax cuts triggered massive federal deficits and were largely reversed within three years. The Tax Reform Act of 1986 was basically revenue neutral, he said, meaning tax cuts were virtually offset by spending cuts. He added that President Bill Clinton’s tax hike was followed by robust growth, while the George W. Bush tax cuts led to anemic growth. None of the experts interviewed cited evidence that tax cuts under President Barack Obama produced sufficient growth to pay for themselves either. On the contrary, there’s some evidence that tax cuts can be a drag on the economy -- like the 2005 CBO study mentioned earlier. When the CBO studied the effects of a hypothetical 10 percent income tax cut for Americans, not all the projections were as rosy as the finding above. Under the CBO’s most pessimistic projection, tax cuts would lead to a 3 percent increase in lost revenue over 10 years. Indeed, tax cuts can have a number of adverse effects that may actually impede growth, according to Kleinbard. One example is a phenomenon known as the "crowding out" effect. The basic idea is that tax cuts create deficits that cause the government to borrow more money and therefore enter deeper debt, which can make private sector borrowing more expensive. Our ruling Foroohar said, "There's no real evidence in the last 20 years that" growth from tax cuts has made up lost revenue. We searched high and low and found no economic experts who could point us to evidence of tax cuts fully paying for themselves. Neither the modern historical record (using fair benchmarks) nor government analyses we looked at supported the claim that tax cuts create enough growth to eventually offset lost revenue. On the contrary, there’s evidence that tax cuts may actually hinder economic growth. We rate Foroohar’s statement True.

Rana Foroohar

2017-04-28T11:16:16

2017-04-26

['None']

pomt-05183

Rob Portman shares "radical, ideological views" toward women.

false

/ohio/statements/2012/jun/14/ohio-democratic-party/ohio-democratic-party-says-rob-portman-shares-radi/

We mean no blasphemy. But what do you call a male, Methodist, Republican lawmaker who supports a measure -- backed by many Catholics -- to allow employers and schools to opt out health-care law mandates on moral or religious grounds? Is he a supporter of religious rights? Or is he a politician with radical, ideological views toward women? The issue here, as may be obvious, is whether employers should be able to omit contraception coverage in their health insurance plans because they believe the use of certain birth control methods or medications is a sin, or they have other moral objections. The issue arose after President Barack Obama’s administration ruled that contraception should be covered, with no co-payment, as an essential health and prevention benefit under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010. The requirement takes effect in August. Churches were exempted from the requirement but in February, after fierce debate with groups supporting reproductive or religious rights, the administration also exempted religion-affiliated schools and charities. Women whose church-employers opt out can still get contraception coverage but must do so through the insurer, without paying another premium, rather than through the workplace. Critics of the health law, including U.S. Sen. Rob Portman, an Ohio Republican, said the exemption was too narrow. Portman supported an amendment by Sen. Roy Blunt, a Missouri Republican, to let any employer opt out of coverage if they objected on religious or moral grounds. The amendment, attached to a highway bill, had broad Republican support. Democrats said the amendment was just another attempt to weaken the Affordable Care Act and would open the act to all manner of other carve-outs. On March 1, the Senate voted 51-48 to table the Blunt amendment. With that vote, this episode seemed to be over. But now that Portman is said to be on Mitt Romney’s short list for vice presidential candidate, the Ohio Democratic Party is using it to question Portman’s intent or sincerity. According to a news release the Ohio Democrats issued on June 3 (with multiple claims, one of which we have addressed already), Portman’s vote on the Blunt amendment showed that he "shares Romney’s and Mandel’s radical, ideological view toward women." That would be Josh Mandel, the Republican Ohio treasurer running for U.S. Senate against incumbent Democrat Sherrod Brown. PolitiFact Ohio is not about to go over every statement made by Romney or Mandel to determine whether either holds radical, ideological views toward women. That’s a political, and arguably presumptuous, judgment. But the Ohio Democrats make it easy to explore the basis of their claim when it comes to Portman because they listed two points of evidence. First, they cited comments that Portman made March 5 to host Chris Matthews on MSNBC’s "Hardball" program. Specifically, the Democrats noted, Portman said, "The issue was about religious freedom, as you know. And it`s a legitimate issue." Portman was discussing the Blunt amendment when he made the cited remark. PolitiFact Ohio listened to the rest of Portman’s comments about the amendment to see if they supported the claim that he holds "radical, ideological views" toward women. Here’s the rest of what he said: "I’m up here in Cleveland tonight and there are a lot of folks who are concerned about it. Twenty-five percent of the people up here get their health care through religious organizations and so that religious freedom issue is very important to them." Next, the Ohio Democratic Party noted Portman’s vote. "Rob Portman was the lone Ohio senator to support the Blunt amendment," the Democrats said. Well yes, he was. But each state only has two senators (Ohio currently has Brown and Portman). So if one voted no, the other would be the "lone" yes. It’s not as ominous when you have that bit of context, is it? Who else voted for the Blunt amendment? Before answering, it’s important to know that while some critics considered the Blunt amendment to be an assault on women’s reproductive rights, this issue was important to a number of Catholics. According to the National Catholic Register, the U.S. Senate has 24 Catholic members, and 11 of them supported the Blunt amendment, as did the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. Thirteen Catholics in the Senate voted to table the measure. But here’s the number that matters most: 48. That’s the number of senators who supported the Blunt measure, and it was just shy of half the chamber. That number included three Democrats: Robert Casey of Pennsylvania, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Could every one of those 48 senators hold "radical, ideological views toward women?" We do not doubt the sincerity of either side on this issue. But for the Ohio Democratic Party to accuse Portman of holding radical, ideological views on the basis of comments in an interview that were anything but inflammatory and a vote that clearly split the Senate is itself an extreme characterization. And to criticize him as the "sole" Ohio senator voting no, when this nation has exactly two U.S. senators representing every single state, is laughable. Civics lessons, anyone? The flimsy evidence simply does not support the Ohio Democratic Party’s claim about "radical, ideological views. The statement is not accurate. On the Truth-O-Meter, the claim rates False.

Ohio Democratic Party

2012-06-14T06:00:00

2012-06-03

['None']

pomt-10311

On the Bush tax cuts.

full flop

/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/aug/04/john-mccain/mccain-used-to-oppose-tax-cuts/

Sen. John McCain was one of the few Republicans who opposed tax cuts proposed by President George W. Bush in 2001, and he opposed them again when they came up for renewal in 2003. In 2001, McCain voted against a $1.35-trillion tax cut package, arguing that the tax cuts didn't do enough for the middle class, and because of a need for increased defense spending. Two years later, McCain again citied fiscal prudence for opposing $350-billion in additional tax cuts, specifically citing the unknown costs for the war in Iraq. "No one can be expected to make an informed decision about fiscal policy at this time," McCain said. "Let us wait until we have succeeded in Iraq." When they came up for renewal again in 2006, though, he voted in favor of them. McCain said he supported the tax-cut extensions, which also reduced tax rates on capital gains and dividend income, because "American businesses and investors need a stable and predictable tax policy to continue contributing to the growth of our economy. These considerations lead me to the conclusion that we should not reverse course by letting higher tax rates take effect." In an interview on Fox News on Dec. 28, 2007, McCain expressed no regrets about his tax votes against Bush. He said he would have preferred a plan that included spending cuts as well as tax cuts, but added that he believes the tax cuts should now be made permanent. "I had significant tax cuts, and there was restraint of spending included in my proposal," McCain said during the appearance on Hannity & Colmes . "I saw no restraint in spending. We presided over the greatest increase in the size of government since the Great Society. Spending went completely out of control. It's still out of control. Wasteful earmark spending is a disgrace, and it caused us to alienate our Republican base. So these tax cuts need to be made permanent. Otherwise, they would have the effect of tax increases. But, look, if we had gotten spending under control, we'd be talking about more tax cuts today." Justifications aside, this is an actual change of position for McCain, so we rate his change on the Bush tax cuts a Full Flop.

John McCain

2008-08-04T00:00:00

2008-08-04

['None']

pomt-05189

Says lawyer appointed by Eric Holder to investigate government leaks helped and donated to Obama's campaign, vetting vice presidential prospects.

true

/texas/statements/2012/jun/13/john-cornyn/john-cornyn-says-obama-appointed-campaign-donor-wh/

U.S. Sen. John Cornyn of Texas called June 12, 2012, for Attorney General Eric Holder's resignation, saying Holder is stonewalling about a botched investigation that involved moving guns across the U.S.-Mexico border. Holder disputed Cornyn's characterization of his responsiveness about Operation Fast and Furious, also pointing out he ended the gun-walking program. Yet Cornyn also aired another criticism, both at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing and in a commentary placed the same day on the Fox News website. In the commentary, Cornyn said Ronald Machen, one of two U.S. attorneys just named by Holder to lead the government’s investigation of information leaks, "has donated thousands of dollars to President Obama’s political campaigns; he vetted vice presidential candidates for the Obama team in 2008; and he got his first job as a federal prosecutor from, you guessed it, Eric Holder. In short, Mr. Machen’s inquiry will not seem truly independent. It is insulting for the attorney general to pretend otherwise." We wondered if Machen, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, is indeed a former Obama campaign donor who vetted vice presidential hopefuls. Who leaked information has been a hot topic in Washington since the New York Times published lengthy news articles on May 29, 2012 and June 1, 2012 detailing Obama’s oversight of secret terrorist kill lists and his hand in planning cyber-attacks on Iran. Republicans including Cornyn have called for the appointment of a special prosecutor to track down leakers. Obama has condemned any leaks as well, while Holder on June 8, 2012, announced he was appointing Machen and Rod J. Rosenstein, the U.S. attorney for Maryland, to lead criminal investigations into possible recent instances of unauthorized disclosures of classified information. Machen, a former assistant U.S. attorney, won Senate confirmation in his post in February 2010. Rosenstein, initially appointed to his job by President George W. Bush, was retained by Obama. Holder said: "These two highly respected and experienced prosecutors will be directing separate investigations currently being conducted by the FBI. I have every confidence in their abilities to doggedly follow the facts and the evidence in the pursuit of justice wherever it leads." At the Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, Cornyn challenged Machen’s independence. After Holder confirmed that he had earlier hired Machen as an assistant U.S. attorney, Cornyn asked him: "Would it surprise you to know that he is a political contributor to President Obama’s campaign and indeed served as a volunteer in Obama for America and assisted in the vetting of potential vice presidential candidates?" Holder replied: "I am confident that he has the ability, the capacity to investigate this case in a nonpartisan, independent, thorough and aggressive way." Asked for backup information, Cornyn spokeswoman Megan Mitchell later pointed us to research by the Center for Responsive Politics, which analyzes campaign donations, indicating that Machen, identified on the center’s site as a resident of Silver Spring, Md., and an attorney in the WilmerHale firm, donated a total of $4,100, in four chunks, to Obama’s presidential campaign from Feb. 8, 2008, through Sept. 30, 2008. In February 2010, the firm, whose full name is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr, issued a press release identifying Machen as a partner. Machen joined the firm in 1993, then worked as an assistant U.S. attorney from 1997 to 2001 before returning to the firm, according to the release. Mitchell also pointed us to a Jan. 19, 2010, news blog post in Legal Times, which covers legal news in Washington and nationally. The post says Machen revealed on a Senate questionnaire he filled out fo as he faced confirmation that he had volunteered for Obama’s campaign and vetted vice presidential prospects for Obama’s campaign. The blog post says vetting work "generally consists of standard background checks of personal information, public speeches, and writings." We emailed Obama’s campaign about Cornyn's claim. Spokeswoman Kara Carscaden declined to comment except to stress Holder’s response to Cornyn about Machen’s ability to perform his newly assigned task. Our ruling We are not judging here whether Machen's donations to Obama's 2008 campaign and his self-declared vetting of vice presidential prospects disqualify him from fully investigating any leaks. That said, Cornyn’s statement rates True.

John Cornyn

2012-06-13T10:57:20

2012-06-12

['Eric_Holder', 'Barack_Obama']

goop-00523

Queen Elizabeth Collapsed After Prince Philip Cancer Diagnosis?

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/queen-elizabeth-collapsed-prince-philip-cancer-diagnosis-photos/

Shari Weiss

Queen Elizabeth Collapsed After Prince Philip Cancer Diagnosis?

3:00 am, August 4, 2018

['None']

pomt-10762

Thompson "voted against $250,000 caps on damages (and) almost anything that would make our legal system fairer."

mostly false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2007/oct/25/rudy-giuliani/update-some-truth-some-stretching-/

Rudy Giuliani criticized Fred Thompson's votes against tort reform bills at a Republican debate in Orlando on Oct. 21, 2007. "Fred was the single biggest obstacle to tort reform in the United States Senate," Giuliani said. "He stood with Democrats over and over again." Giuliani said Thompson "voted against $250,000 caps on damages, which they have in Texas. He voted against almost anything that would make our legal system fairer: 'loser pays' rules, things that would prevent lawsuits like that $54 million lawsuit by that guy who lost his pants . . . Fred Thompson, along with very few Republicans, blocked tort reform over and over and over again. That is not a conservative position." We find Giuliani has his facts only partially right and is stretching the truth with his rhetoric. Giuliani is correct that Thompson cast a vote against a $250,000 cap on punitive damages, but that's only part of the story. Thompson's no vote back in 1995 was on an amendment to a product liability bill. The cap as written in the bill originally had been $250,000 or three times the economic damages, whichever is greater. The amendment lowered it to $250,000 or double the economic damages. Thompson was one of only six Republicans to vote against lowering the cap. But the following year, when the amended bill came back for final passage, Thompson voted for it. President Clinton later vetoed the legislation. Giuliani is right that Texas has a $250,000 cap on the amount individuals can receive in punitive damages in a health care liability case, although claims against separate hospitals and health care institutions can collect awards as high as $500,000. He would have been more accurate if he had said the cap as on "punitive damages on medical claims." As our friends at FactCheck.org noted in their report on this topic, Giuliani overreaches with his claim that Thompson was "the single biggest obstacle to tort reform in the Senate." For example, Thompson was one of six Republicans who opposed the $250,000 cap but has also voted with his party on other tort reform bills. Having voted on both sides of the issue, he was not considered the leader of either side. Giuliani is exaggerating with his claim that Thompson opposed "loser pays" rules. Giuliani's claim that his rival opposed "loser pays" rules is based on Thompson's vote (on the winning side) to strip language from the 1996 bill that would have forced only the defendants — not the plaintiffs — to pay attorney and court fees if they refused to settle of court and the refusal was "unreasonable or not made in good faith." But this doesn't really fit the definition of "loser pays"; instead, striking the language did more to benefit the corporate defendants. Overall, we find Giuliani's attack on Thompson to be Barely True. UPDATE: We originally ruled this Half True, but we discovered we had only examined some of Thompson's votes on the $250,000 cap. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.

Rudy Giuliani

2007-10-25T00:00:00

2007-10-21

['None']

snes-03744

The WikiLeaks 'Podesta archive' included an e-mail that stated President Obama had "directed his supporters in Colorado to engage in a little all-American voter fraud."

mostly false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/obama-all-american-voter-fraud/

Ballot Box

Kim LaCapria

WikiLeaks E-Mail Says Obama Directed His Supporters to Enage in ‘All-American Voter Fraud’

21 October 2016

['Colorado', 'Barack_Obama']

pomt-01915

U.S. Senate candidate David Perdue’s company took $3 million from the federal stimulus program that President Barack Obama created.

mostly false

/georgia/statements/2014/jun/30/jack-kingston/kingston-claim-more-rhetoric-reality/

In a provocative ad now airing on television and radio, U.S. Senate candidate Jack Kingston tries to tie his Republican runoff opponent, businessman David Perdue, to President Barack Obama. An Obama impersonator leaves a faux voicemail for Kingston, asking him to "ease up" on Perdue because "he’s my kind of guy." Perdue and Kingston, a veteran U.S. congressman from Savannah, are locked in a heated Republican runoff to be the party’s nominee to succeed retiring U.S. Sen. Saxby Chambliss. In November, the winner of the July 22 runoff faces Democrat Michelle Nunn. In his ad, Kingston claims Perdue's company took $3 million from the federal stimulus program that Obama created to jump-start the economy. Kingston opposed the stimulus, and some critics say it was a waste of taxpayer money. But is the claim about a Perdue company taking stimulus money true? Or is it more rhetoric than reality? PolitiFact Georgia wanted to know. Kingston is hardly the first candidate to try to discredit an opponent with claims of connections to the president or to one of Obama’s polarizing initiatives – mainly, the health care overhaul, commonly known as Obamacare, and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, better known as the "stimulus plan." In 2012, Mark Neumann, the leading tea party candidate in Wisconsin’s GOP Senate primary, was on the defensive after acknowledging that his company took $80,000 in stimulus money. He lost the primary to former Wisconsin Gov. Tommy Thompson. In his ad, Kingston is referring to $3.4 million in stimulus that went to Alliant Energy Co., a Midwest energy holding company that reported $3.2 billion in operating revenue in 2013. Perdue, best known for his leadership of Dollar General, has been on Alliant’s board of directors since 2001, earning about $1.3 million in directors fees, according to records of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Last year, Perdue reported making between $2.1 million and $8.1 million from investment income and corporate board memberships. At the time, in addition to Alliant’s board, he was serving on the board of Sandy Springs-based Graphic Packaging International Inc., California-based Easton-Bell Sports Inc. and Washington-based Liquidity Services Inc. Kingston spokesman Chris Crawford said this week that Perdue has acknowledged in the past that he knew of the stimulus grants to Alliant. "If he was aware, why didn’t he take action to stop them?" Crawford said. "If he didn’t take an ownership role in leading the company, why did he take $1 million from the company?" Perdue campaign spokesman Derrick Dickey said the ad is representative of "the kind of false and misleading accusations we have come to expect" from Kingston. Perdue didn’t receive any stimulus money personally and neither did any company he managed, Dickey said. He said Perdue doesn’t recall any board of directors vote at Alliant on the stimulus money and isn’t a fan of that initiative. "David believes that overall, like most spending by Washington politicians, the stimulus was a waste of taxpayer money that missed its mark while piling on even more debt," Dickey said. (Perdue’s campaign has stressed the need to reduce the federal debt and has a running debt clock on its website.) We attempted to contact Alliant to see whether we could review the minutes of the board of directors’ meetings, specifically to see whether there were discussions and/or votes on the stimulus money. We didn’t receive an immediate response. We also reached out to Robert S. Chirinko, a professor at the University of Illinois who specializes in corporate governance issues. We asked him about the fairness of an ad suggesting that the stimulus money went to "one of Perdue’s companies" when his role at Alliant is as a member of the board of directors. Members of a board of directors "are merely the trustees of the company and they represent the shareholders’ interests," he said. "In principle, the board makes sure the shareholders/owners get treated fairly and applicable laws and regulations are followed. It could well be the case that the board was not involved in the decision to accept stimulus money." With a major company the size of Alliant, "$3.4 million may fly below the board’s radar screen," Chirinko said. The Kingston ad mentions the $3 million in stimulus funds. But the Kingston camp says much more stimulus money went to Alliant or its affiliates. The company’s 2012 annual report shows that it has three wind farms that took at least $64 million in stimulus-provided production tax credits and another that took a $62.4 million stimulus cash grant, Crawford said. The Hill also has reported that Graphic Packaging, another company that has Perdue on its board, received a $500,000 stimulus grant. Perdue’s camp suggests Kingston has questions of his own to answer about the stimulus. Dickey said Kingston voted against the stimulus but lobbied for and put out press releases about the federal money being received in Georgia. In summary, the ad makes the claim that one of Perdue’s companies took stimulus money. Perdue sat on four company boards, including at Alliant. That’s a lot different than owning, running or working day to day for a company. We think it’s misleading to say Alliant is his company in an attempt to link him to the president’s stimulus program. It is a company with which he has an affiliation, so there is a bit of truth here, but just a bit. We rate the attack ad statement as Mostly False.

Jack Kingston

2014-06-30T00:00:00

2014-06-18

['United_States', 'Barack_Obama']

pose-00598

As governor, Rick will work toward energy independence from foreign oil with the expansion of nuclear power, the use of alternative fuels and ensure that we can drill for oil safely.” compromise https://www.politifact.com/florida/promises/scott-o-meter/promise/622/expand-use-of-nuclear-power-and-alternative-fuels/ None scott-o-meter Rick Scott None None Expand use of nuclear power and alternative fuels 2010-12-21T09:36:20 None ['None'] snes-02587 Nazi Luftwaffe commander Hermann Goering proclaimed that although the people don't want war," they "can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders."

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/war-games/

Questionable Quotes

David Mikkelson

Hermann Goering: War Games

4 October 2002

['Hermann_Göring']

goop-01066

Kanye West Staying With Caitlyn Jenner Amid Kim Kardashian “Divorce

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/kanye-west-caitlyn-jenner-staying-kim-kardashian-divorce-untrue/

Shari Weiss

Kanye West NOT Staying With Caitlyn Jenner Amid Kim Kardashian “Divorce”

1:12 pm, May 3, 2018

['Kim_Kardashian']

pomt-10551

Hillary's main extracurricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent.

false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/feb/15/chain-email/she-did-not-help-the-black-panthers/

Hillary Clinton and the Black Panthers. It makes for quite the unlikely image. But according to a chain e-mail that originated with an Internet article by Dick Morris, the former Clinton adviser turned foe, Hillary Rodham was a student radical at Yale Law School who dedicated herself to helping violent Black Panthers on trial for murder. "Hillary's main extracurricular activity in law school was helping the Black Panthers, on trial in Connecticut for torturing and killing a federal agent," Morris wrote. "She went to court every day as part of a law student monitoring committee trying to spot civil rights violations and develop grounds for appeal." Often repeated on the Internet, the claim turns out to be largely embellished, but they are not without a grain of truth. Here's the history. In 1970, eight Black Panthers, including national chairman Bobby Seale, were brought to trial in New Haven, Conn., on charges of murdering a fellow member, Alex Rackley, who was suspected of being a police informant. He was not a federal agent. The trial consumed the Yale campus, and many Yale students rallied in support of the black defendants, or at least for their right to a fair trial. In her autobiography, Clinton said in reference to the Black Panthers that "J. Edgar Hoover's FBI infiltrated dissident groups and, in some cases, broke the law in order to disrupt them. Law enforcement sometimes failed to distinguish between constitutionally protected, legitimate opposition and criminal behavior." She does not mention any personal involvement, except to relate that she participated in a bucket brigade to help put out a fire that broke out at the International Law Library just prior to a May Day rally. Clinton played a "minor" role in the doings that year, said Paul Bass, a journalist who spent years researching the Black Panther case for a book he co-authored called Murder in the Model City. She co-chaired a committee whose main role was to prevent violence at the May Day demonstration, Bass said. They made arrangements for medical care should any demonstrators get hurt. Friends recalled that Clinton took a moderate tone, Bass said. The committee also vowed to offer legal advice to demonstrators who got arrested and to monitor the trial for any civil rights abuses. If that monitoring ever happened, said two sources at the trial interviewed by the St. Petersburg Times , one thing is certain: Clinton was not an every-day trial watcher, as Morris claimed. Nor did she "help" the defense. David Rosen, who was less than a year out of Yale Law School, was a junior member of the defense team for Seale. "I can't say she was never in court," Rosen said. "But she was not there every day. In fact, I don't even remember seeing her there at all." "I know she didn't do any work for the defense team," Rosen said. "I was on the defense team, and she didn't do anything for us." According to Carl Bernstein's biography A Woman in Charge, Clinton was among the student-observers from professor Tom Emerson's civil liberties class who attended the trial daily "to report possible abuses by the government, discuss them in class, write papers about them and prepare summaries for the American Civil Liberties Union." That last part is news to Mike Avery, who was hired by the ACLU as a staff lawyer to work on the Black Panther case, to keep tabs on any civil rights violations that came up at trial. He doesn't remember the ACLU receiving summaries from any student group, and he specifically does not remember Clinton being a regular at the trial. "To my knowledge, she didn't have any involvement at all," said Avery, now a law professor at Suffolk Law School in Boston. "I didn't see Hillary Rodham anywhere around the place, and I would have known." People involved in the case, even peripherally, all knew each other, he said. They socialized together. "She was not in that crowd," he said, "by no stretch of the imagination." Nevertheless, the distorted versions from Morris and others have been picked up on thousands of Web pages, and widely circulated via chain e-mail. They also have been echoed by conservative political commentators like Sean Hannity. "What the right has done is just a travesty," said Bass, who added that he is no fan of Clinton. "She wasn't any kind of student leader on this. I couldn't find a person who saw her anywhere. The attempt to use this incident to claim Clinton was an apologist for violence is really insidious." Clinton's campaign did not respond to inquiries from the Times. Even if Clinton helped to observe the trial as part of a law class, that's different than "helping" the Panthers, who were on trial. And the claim that Clinton went to court every day to monitor the trial is, according to witnesses, just not so. Morris appears to have taken a minor involvement by Clinton and spun it into a much more prominent and controversial role. We rate his claim False.

Chain email

2008-02-15T00:00:00

2008-01-24

['Connecticut', 'Black_Panther_Party']

tron-02688

Make big bucks in a PayPal Scheme

fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/paypalchain/

money-financial

Make big bucks in a PayPal Scheme

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

snes-02970

Did Thousands of Muslims Leave the United States After Trump’s Election?

mixture

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/thousands-muslims-leave-united-states-trumps-election/

Junk News

Dan Evon

Did Thousands of Muslims Leave the United States After Trump’s Election?

9 February 2017

['None']

hoer-00113

BBC News Alert Warns of Radiation Rain in Asian Countries

bogus warning

https://www.hoax-slayer.com/fake-bbc-news-flash-radiation.shtml

Brett M. Christensen

Fake BBC News Alert Warns of Radiation Rain in Asian Countries

16th March 2011

['None']

pomt-14757

David Simpson actually voted for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants.

mostly false

/texas/statements/2015/dec/11/bryan-hughes/bryan-hughes-mostly-wrong-about-david-simpson-voti/

Republican candidates for an East Texas state Senate seat disagree over whether one of them has voted for permitting driver’s licenses for Texas residents who lack legal permission to live in the country. State Rep. David Simpson of Longview emailed reporters a Nov. 30, 2015, statement saying Rep. Bryan Hughes of Mineola had slanderously charged Simpson with supporting licenses for illegal immigrants without delivering the factual goods. The two are competing for a chance to succeed Kevin Eltife of Tyler representing the Senate's District 1. Simpson said: "I have always opposed driver’s licenses for illegal aliens." Hughes disputed that in a Dec. 1, 2015, press release stating Simpson "actually voted for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants." Is that right? Some perspective: The Texas Department of Public Safety began requiring license applicants to produce government-issued documents affirming their legal residency status in 2008, and lawmakers voted to require as much in a 2011 special session. Before 2008, according to a July 2011 Texas Tribune news story, no proof of legal residency was required to obtain a Texas license or state identification card. Mindful that Hughes said Simpson, a third-term legislator, voted for giving driver’s licenses to immigrants, we reviewed Simpson’s legislative record. We ultimately found no direct votes by Simpson on licenses for immigrants. In contrast, he joined most House members in voting for the 2011 mandate that the state request proof of legal residency from driver’s license applicants, arguably a sign he wasn’t champing to ease the way for unauthorized residents to get licensed. Still, his vote on a 2013 House proposal leaves room for speculation about his consistency. 2011 In summer 2011, lawmakers moved to require the DPS to seek proof of legal residency from applicants for driver’s licenses by placing an amendment on a fiscal matters measure. At the time, the move was pitched as bringing Texas into compliance with the federal REAL ID Act, which says applicants for a driver's license must prove legal residency if they want to use the identification to get through airport security. See the agency's explanation of the requirement here. And on June 9, 2011, nearly every House member (including Simpson) approved the amendment to Senate Bill 1. House video reveals no debate of the matter after Rep. Charles Geren, R-Fort Worth, told colleagues the amendment "addresses an issue of people getting Texas driver’s licenses that don’t live in Texas and it also allows the department to issue a license only for the length of time that a person is entitled to be here." According to the House Journal, eight members, Simpson not among them, asked to be recorded voting against the amendment. Records show too Simpson voting against the overall fiscal matters proposal several times; those votes occurred on June 9, June 10 and June 28, 2011. By email, Simpsons told us he opposed the measure "due to its accounting gimmicks—namely, the deferment of Foundation School Program payments and the speed-up of tax payments—and its misplaced priorities, not because of the license provision, which I supported." He provided a copy of a May 2012 letter to House constituents stating that he "voted for the amendment to add documentation requirements for driver's licenses" but against SB 1 because it extended inequitable school funding, sped tax collections and used "smoke and mirrors" to balance the state budget. So, there are no votes by Simpson in favor of driver’s licenses for immigrants. But there does appear to be fodder for speculation about Simpson’s consistent opposition. 2013 In 2013, Simpson voted against successful House efforts effectively killing proposals that related to more residents possibly getting driving permits. We don’t know of an independent way of telling if those votes signaled a position on driver’s licenses. But on May 20, 2013, Simpson edged a step farther by voting in favor of one of the failed amendments, the Texas House Journal shows. An amendment to Senate Bill 1729 by Rep. Byron Cook, R-Corsicana, said that under the legislation, which generally authorized a pilot project enabling a few counties to update or renew driver’s licenses, a license should include "any Texas resident driver’s permit authorized by law." And what did that mean? In debate, opponents said Cook’s language related to unauthorized residents getting a driver’s permit. Similarly, Simpson and Hughes’ campaign each nudged, conservative advocacy groups characterized the amendment as opening driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants. In a scorecard of the 2013 Legislature, for instance, the Young Conservatives of Texas said Cook’s amendment "would have allowed for illegal immigrants to receive driver’s licenses." We didn’t reach that conclusion. By email, Simpson told us Cook’s amendment "in no way authorized illegal aliens to receive driver’s licenses." Asked why he voted for it, Simpson said: "I voted yes to the amendment because it would only include licenses or permits already" authorized by law. In the House debate, Cook didn’t dispute that his proposal might legalize more drivers; he also stressed that another change in law would be needed for the envisioned driving permits to become a reality. And while his proposal drew 72 votes, with 67 members voting no, it still died because Cook offered the proposal during final consideration of SB 1729; at that stage, 100 House votes were needed to amend legislation. A few days earlier, on May 17, 2013, Cook rolled out a longer amendment to SB 1729. He described the longer proposal--which was shortly derailed on a parliamentary point of order--as identical to a committee-approved version of House Bill 3206 by Rep. Roberto Alonzo, D-Dallas. Alonzo’s unsuccessful plan called for state-issued driving permits for residents who lack proof of legal residency, also requiring recipients to obtain auto insurance. Under the proposal, every applicant would have to submit to fingerprinting and clear a criminal background check. Before his proposal was felled, Cook told House members the permits wouldn’t look like driver’s licenses and couldn’t be used as IDs to board planes or vote. "We have a growing population of non-citizens driving every day to school, to church, to work, all without insurance," Cook said, posing risks to all residents. The same month, Hughes’ campaign pointed out, Simpson was on the losing end of an 87-60 House vote setting aside Alonzo’s amendment to another House measure authorizing the state to let public schools and driving schools give the driving test required to get a license. Before that May 21, 2013, action, Alonzo told House colleagues that under his amendment, schools could give driving tests to individuals who obtained resident driving permits, provided such permits were legalized. "Texas has a problem," Alonzo said, with people driving without auto insurance or a driver’s permit. By phone, Alonzo told us he favors giving undocumented individuals an opportunity to legally drive in Texas and his 2013 proposal’s described permits could have nudged the state toward fulfilling that goal though, he said, it didn’t provide for full-fledged licenses. Our ruling Hughes said Simpson "voted for driver's licenses for illegal immigrants." No such vote occurred. In the clearest vote we could find, Simpson voted to make it harder, not easier, to obtain licenses when, in 2011, he joined nearly every House member in approving a new mandate that applicants for driver’s licenses be required to document their legal residency. But we did find an element of truth to Hughes’ statement. Simpson voted in 2013 for an unsuccessful proposal that could generously be interpreted as foreseeing a path to individuals living here without authorization getting resident driving permits, though significantly such permits as sought by Alonzo and others didn’t (and don’t) exist. We rate this claim Mostly False. MOSTLY FALSE – The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression. Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

Bryan Hughes

2015-12-11T13:22:35

2015-12-01

['None']

pomt-06415

Says it wasn't until he and a Senate colleague were able to "wrangle the actual streaming video" from BP that scientists were able to calculate the oil spill flow.

mostly true

/florida/statements/2011/oct/26/bill-nelson/sen-bill-nelson-said-his-battle-bp-video-allowed-s/

It's been a year and a half since oil suddenly gushed from the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig into the Gulf of Mexico. In the early days, rig operator BP estimated about 1,000 barrels a day might be escaping into the gulf. The true number? More like 50,000 to 60,000 barrels — or more than 2 million gallons — every day, for nearly three months. How did we learn it was so high? U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., says it wasn't until he and a Senate colleague were able to "wrangle the actual streaming video" from BP that scientists were able to calculate the flow. Nelson spoke about the spill Oct. 11, 2011, on the Senate floor, where he urged his colleagues to find a way to fund gulf research. He began: "As one of the senators from a state that borders the Gulf of Mexico, naturally we have been quite concerned in the followup to the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. You will remember that was an oil spill that at first BP said: Oh, it was only 1,000 barrels a day. It was not until Sen. (Barbara) Boxer, the chairman of the environment committee, and I were able to wrangle the actual streaming video from 5,000 feet below the surface and put it up on my Web site that the scientists could then calculate how much oil was coming out. It was not anywhere close to 1,000 barrels a day. In fact, it ended up being 50,000 barrels of oil a day that was gushing into the Gulf of Mexico. As a result of that total number of days, almost 5 million barrels of oil has gushed into the gulf, we can expect some serious economic and environmental consequences and particularly the consequences on the critters." The senior senator from Florida, responsible for lifting the veil on a disaster unfolding 5,000 feet underwater? For this fact-check, we're weighing the statement, "It was not until Sen. Boxer ... and I were able to wrangle the actual streaming video (of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill) from 5,000 feet below the surface and put it up on my Web site that the scientists could then calculate how much oil was coming out." We reached out to scientists, reviewed news and video from the time, checked official reports on the spill and spoke with the senator's office. • • • On April 20, 2010, an explosion ripped through the drilling rig, killing 11 crew members. As flames raged above water 49 miles off the coast of Louisiana, something equally violent was happening beneath the surface. It wasn't yet clear what. But within a day, a nonprofit group called SkyTruth, led by a geologist who had worked for the energy industry, began collecting and analyzing satellite images of the spill — brown swirls a reporter would later say resembled peanut butter. The group got help from Florida State oceanographer Ian MacDonald. On April 24, BP said that a broken riser pipe was leaking 1,000 barrels a day. A few days later, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration boosted the estimate to 5,000 barrels. That was the first official "flow rate estimate." It would be used for weeks. It wasn't based on much. In late April and early May, SkyTruth said satellite images and Coast Guard maps of the slick showed the flow might be more than four times that. But none of those estimates could fully account for what was happening below the surface, where chemical dispersants created tiny droplets that spread in underwater plumes. • • • On May 12, BP released a 30-second video of oil and gas spilling from the end of a broken pipe — and scientists scrambled to update their estimates, which now ranged from 20,000 to 100,000 barrels a day. By mid May, media reports spread additional doubt about the 5,000-barrel estimate. Rep. Edward Markey, the Massachusetts Democrat who chaired the Energy and Environment Subcommittee, sent BP a letter questioning the size of the spill. A few days later, Sens. Nelson and Boxer sent their demand for underwater video. They soon got seven hard drives of high-resolution digital imagery, thousands of hours, said Nelson spokesman Dan McLaughlin. Low-resolution streaming video — what you may have seen online — wouldn't give scientists the detail they needed, so the senators' offices also uploaded high-resolution files to large-file transfer sites on the Web and in some cases even copied the hard drives and sent them to researchers, such as Timothy Crone at Columbia University. In June, the senators repeated their call for video evidence, this time for all video records. In the Oct. 29, 2010, issue of Science magazine, a report co-authored by Crone said the oil's flow was at least 10 times higher than first reported. It credited high-resolution video data "provided by the office of Senator Bill Nelson and by the Senate Committee on the Environment and Public Works." "Sen. Nelson was one of the strongest proponents of open data access, and his work along with the work of others on that committee were critical for the work of independent scientists to go forward," Crone told PolitiFact Florida. Paul Ruscher, a Florida State professor who along with MacDonald urged that BP release more information, said much of what scientists suggested was initially ignored. "It was a staffer from Sen. Nelson's office who was contacted at some point, and whom I then contacted, to try to encourage both Senate and House energy committee members to get involved," he said. Ruscher said Nelson and other politicians, including Sen. John Kerry and Markey, should get full credit for pushing NOAA, the Coast Guard and BP to release video. Final official estimates came from the Flow Rate Technical Group, which used several methods to estimate the amount of oil that streamed from Deepwater Horizon. Among its evidence: high-resolution video. Our ruling Nelson told his Senate colleagues, "It was not until Sen. Boxer ... and I were able to wrangle the actual streaming video (of the Deepwater Horizon oil spill) from 5,000 feet below the surface and put it up on my Web site that the scientists could then calculate how much oil was coming out." Scientists quickly challenged BP's early estimate based on satellite images and Coast Guard maps. Independent estimates improved when BP released short video clips. But scientists who specialize in flow rate calculations based on high-resolution, time-stamped video didn't have access to data they needed until Nelson's and Boxer's offices pushed for it. Some of those files were indeed downloaded from Nelson's website, while some were on physical hard drives that had to be mailed. A casual listener might think scientists were unable to make early calculations that challenged BP's word without video from Nelson's website — and that's not quite the case. Meanwhile, other lawmakers also pushed for greater openness. But letters, press releases and interviews show Nelson did play a key role in the release of critical data, and for that we'll rate his statement Mostly True.

Bill Nelson

2011-10-26T17:23:54

2011-10-11

['None']

snes-06157

A Salvation Army official stated that homosexuals "deserve to die."

mixture

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/salvation-army/

Politics

David Mikkelson

Did a Salvation Army Official Say That Homosexuals “Deserve to Die”?

23 September 2013

['None']

pomt-08596

Our county now has the fastest growing airport in America, attracting nearly 1,000 new private sector jobs.

half-true

/wisconsin/statements/2010/sep/24/scott-walker/scott-walker-says-milwaukee-airport-fastest-growin/

On Sept. 14, 2010, after winning the Republican nomination for governor, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker in a victory speech rattled off a list of on-the-job accomplishments -- from holding down taxes to cleaning up county government. Among the items Walker listed: "Our county now has the fastest growing airport in America, attracting nearly 1,000 new private sector jobs." Every month seems to bring a new announcement from Walker’s county office of a new record for passengers at Mitchell International Airport. But is Mitchell’s traffic growth really leading the nation? And what about those 1,000 jobs? A review of county records shows these are boom times at Mitchell -- thanks to consolidations and convulsions in the airline business. Airlines are adding flights to and from the airport and more passengers are coming through the gates. In July 2010, the airport set a single-month record with 928,497 passengers, the 11th consecutive month of record passenger growth. In the first quarter of 2010, the airport handled 2,192,859 passengers -- a 35.3 percent increase over the first quarter of 2009. That first quarter performance put MKE near the top of an international list. According to Airports Council International, an industry group, Mitchell’s year-over-year passenger growth was the world’s fourth largest, behind Istanbul, Turkey; Phuket, Thailand; and Moscow. Milwaukee was the only U.S. airport in the top 30 list. So what is going on at Mitchell, and is Walker right to claim county credit for it? It’s simple, according to aviation consultant Michael Boyd, of Boyd Group International in Evergreen, Colo.: Three airlines -- AirTran Airways, Southwest and Republic -- are "trying to kill each other." "It has nothing to do with county government," Boyd said. "It has to do with airline economics." After the former owner of Midwest Airlines slashed the number of flights by 40 percent and cut hundreds of jobs, the others moved in on the business. AirTran established a second national hub at Mitchell, increasing departures from 18 to 47 in the past year. Southwest began service in November 2009, adding 10 departures. And Republic, the new owner of Midwest (now operating as Frontier Airlines), began restoring service. It now has 90 flights a day, five less than what Midwest offered a year ago. So the airport is leading the nation in passenger growth -- in part because it is working its way back up of the decline that came when Midwest cut its flights. But what about the "nearly 1,000 new private sector jobs"? No one counts "airport" jobs. Not the state, county or the Metropolitan Milwaukee Chamber of Commerce, which compiles area employment reports each month. When asked for documentation, the Walker campaign responded with three clippings -- one each from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ("Republic Airways to add up to 800 jobs here"), BizTimes.com ("Southwest Airlines to begin with 12 flights out of Milwaukee") and WISN.com ("AirTran Brings More Jobs to Milwaukee"). Tallied together, they covered 940 new jobs. The clips were all from 2009, so we contacted the airlines for fresh information. Republic said it has added 500 jobs. AirTran said it added 100. Southwest added 41. That’s about 640 jobs -- far short of those promised of the 940 promised , though AirTran and Republic have said they plan to continue to add jobs into next year. Of course, the new jobs come against the backdrop of lost jobs, as Midwest struggled to stay afloat. The airline cut 2,600 jobs nationwide between early 2008 and the fall of 2009. In Wisconsin, Midwest notified the state of plans to lay off 1,600 workers -- 1,379 in 2008 and 234 in 2009. The other airlines will, no doubt, hire some of those laid-off workers. But employment remains far short of where it was before Midwest’s fall. So, let’s see if Walker’s statement flies. When it comes to growth in passenger count, Mitchell International Airport is leading the nation -- though much of that is through regaining traffic that had been lost in recent years. Experts note this is due to an airline battle, more so than any direct action by Walker or the county. On the jobs side, the new (and promised) jobs won’t replace all the jobs that were lost. If they ultimately come through, Walker’s election-night number of "nearly 1,000" may be on target, but for now that portion of his claim can be marked "Flight delayed." We rate Walker’s statement Half True.

Scott Walker

2010-09-24T09:00:00

2010-09-14

['United_States']

pomt-05804

The governor is trying to take credit for recent actions taken by these companies. The problem is that for all three companies, the decision to move or stay in New Jersey happened before Chris Christie became governor.

mostly true

/new-jersey/statements/2012/feb/23/new-jersey-senate-democrats/senate-dems-claim-christie-wrongly-takes-credit-bu/

In emphasizing New Jersey’s economic road to recovery, Gov. Chris Christie gave a shoutout to three companies during his State of the State address in January, associating their locations with his "Jersey Comeback" theme. Specifically, Christie noted that Bayer put its North American headquarters in Morris County, Novo Nordisk came to Middlesex County and LG Electronics to Bergen County. Senate Democrats also issued a shoutout on the matter, but theirs wasn’t as flattering as the governor’s. "The governor is trying to take credit for recent actions taken by these companies," the Democrats said in a Jan. 18 news release. "The problem is that for all three companies, the decision to move or stay in New Jersey happened before Chris Christie became governor." The Democrats correctly note that all three companies decided to make New Jersey home before Christie became governor, but at least two of the firms announced expansions after he took office, PolitiFact New Jersey found. First, let’s look at when each company came to New Jersey. Christie was elected governor in November 2009 and took office in January 2010. LG Electronics came to Englewood Cliffs as part of a reorganization, according to a press release it issued in 2004. Bayer announced in 2007 that its U.S. headquarters would be in New Jersey. A year later, Novo Nordisk announced an expansion of its U.S. headquarters in Princeton. So the three companies began putting down roots in the Garden State before Christie was elected governor. But that doesn’t mean his office hasn’t had any involvement with keeping those firms here. In Bayer’s case, the pharmaceutical giant announced in April that New Jersey would also become the "home" of Bayer HealthCare’s consolidated East-Coast business site. Bayer has a contingent purchase agreement for a property in Whippany, according to spokeswoman Rosemarie Yancosek. The deal is in the due diligence process, she said in an e-mail. Christie spokesman Michael Drewniak did not respond to our request for comment but the governor said in an April Bayer news release, "Bayer’s commitment to stay and expand in New Jersey is another signal that our state is growing and that this administration’s job creating policies are paying dividends. Bayer’s planned investment in New Jersey will help keep us the premier state in the nation for the pharmaceutical industry in addition to creating needed jobs and giving a boost to our state’s economy." Novo Nordisk spokesman Ken Inchausti told us in an e-mail that the Danish pharmaceutical company last October announced plans for another expansion, on Scudders Mill Road in Plainsboro. It’s worth noting that the Democrats cited Novo Nordisk’s move to Princeton in their Jan. 18 release, but that’s in Mercer County. Christie’s address cited the company’s location in Middlesex County, which is the Plainsboro expansion announced three months ago. Democrats spokesman Chris Donnelly declined to comment further on the release, which doesn’t clarify whether Christie was talking about the businesses’ initial arrival in New Jersey or expansion plans. But the governor’s words do give an impression that the companies are new to the state. "People are recognizing the New Jersey Comeback all around the world … Bayer put its North American headquarters in Morris County, Novo Nordisk in Middlesex County, and LG Electronics in Bergen County," Christie said in his address. LG Electronics did not respond to requests for comment. Our ruling The state Senate Democrats issued a news release in January claiming that Christie, in his State of the State address, was trying to take credit for Bayer, Novo Nordisk and LG Electronics coming to New Jersey under the "Jersey Comeback" heading. We found that the three companies arrived in New Jersey before Christie became governor and anyone heard of a "Jersey Comeback," but Bayer and Novo Nordisk announced expansion plans after Christie’s election. We rate the statement Mostly True. To comment on this story, go to NJ.com.

New Jersey Senate Democrats

2012-02-23T07:30:00

2012-01-18

['New_Jersey', 'Chris_Christie']

goop-02656

Jennifer Garner, Chris Pine Dating In “Revenge Romance,”

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/jennifer-garner-chris-pine-not-dating-cover-story/

Shari Weiss

Jennifer Garner, Chris Pine NOT Dating In “Revenge Romance,” Despite Cover Story

2:00 pm, July 19, 2017

['None']

snes-01619

Did Michele Bachmann Say Vegas Victims Would be Alive If They Observed the Sabbath?

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/michele-bachmann-vegas-victims/

Questionable Quotes

Kim LaCapria

Did Michele Bachmann Say Vegas Victims Would be Alive If They Observed the Sabbath?

6 October 2017

['None']

chct-00273

FACT CHECK: Would ’Over 50 million’ Families Pay More Taxes Under The GOP Tax Bill?

verdict: false

http://checkyourfact.com/2017/11/09/fact-check-would-over-50-million-families-pay-more-taxes-under-the-gop-tax-bill/

Kush Desai | Fact Check Reporter

8:21 PM 11/09/2017

['None']

vogo-00307

Statement: “San Diego County is probably one of the only counties that has very few, very few qualified districts,” Randy Ward, superintendent of the San Diego County Office of Education, said during an interview with KPBS on Nov. 23.

determination: barely true

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/education/fact-check-school-districts-nearing-insolvency/

Analysis: With the state poised to cut millions of dollars in education funding this year, school districts across California are bracing for another cash crunch. San Diego Unified has warned of possible insolvency and a state takeover.

Fact Check: School Districts Nearing Insolvency

November 30, 2011

['San_Diego_County,_California', 'KPBS-FM']

pose-00726

Will push capital gains break through the 2011 session.

stalled

https://www.politifact.com/oregon/promises/kitz-o-meter/promise/756/push-capital-gains-tax-break/

kitz-o-meter

John Kitzhaber

Push capital gains tax break

2011-01-04T21:58:42

['None']

pomt-04463

Says Mitt Romney plans to "fire" Big Bird.

pants on fire!

/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/09/barack-obama/obama-says-romney-wants-fire-big-bird/

Scare tactics have a long history in American politics. Now, the Obama campaign is trying to scare preschoolers -- and their parents -- with a claim that Mitt Romney wants to fire Big Bird. It all started with Romney's remark in the last debate that he opposes federal subsidies for PBS. "I’m sorry, Jim," Romney told debate moderator Jim Lehrer during the debate at University of Denver on Oct. 3. "I’m going to stop the subsidy to PBS. … I like PBS, I love Big Bird. I actually like you, too. But I’m not going to — I’m not going to keep on spending money on things to borrow money from China to pay for." The towering yellow fellow stole the show again on Monday in Derry, N.H., when a plucky Big Bird impersonator from President Barack Obama’s reelection team hoisted a sign stating, "Romney-Boehner. Tough on Sesame Street; Soft on Wall Street," outside U.S. House Speaker John Boehner’s speaking event stumping for the former Massachusetts governor. Big Bird didn’t have much to say, but his handler, Holly Shulman, communications director for Obama for America-New Hampshire, did. "Mitt Romney’s plan is to give $5 trillion in tax breaks skewed toward the wealthiest Americans," Shulman said, "while getting rid of the things that people care about, getting rid of Planned Parenthood, firing Big Bird and voucherizing Medicare." Nationwide, surrogates for Obama are harping on the future of the Sesame Street hero to highlight another way they say Romney is out of touch. On Tuesday, Obama released a sarcastic campaign commercial, mocking Romney for taking on "menaces to our economy" like Big Bird, "no matter where they nest." Sesame Workshop, the nonprofit behind Sesame Street, has since cried fowl over the ad and asked the campaign to take it down. But we wondered whether the campaign was going too far with its claim that Romney would "fire" the Sesame Street icon. And as Big Bird often says, "Asking questions is a good way of finding things out!" First we contacted Obama’s campaign for sources. They chirped about the small impact reducing public broadcasting appropriations would have on the federal budget, and cited articles where Romney talks about the cuts and PBS news releases about their station’s reach. We asked Romney’s campaign for some background. In an interview with Fortune magazine earlier this year, Romney ticked off a number of so-called subsidy programs he would eliminate if elected, including the one behind PBS. For fiscal 2013, the federal government appropriated $445 million for public broadcasting according to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Washington Post compared that with the $1.42 billion the government spent for Amtrak, and the $146 million for the National Endowment for the Arts and Humanities -- two other subsidies Romney said he would cut. "Some of these things, like those endowment efforts and PBS I very much appreciate and like what they do in many cases, but I just think they have to stand on their own rather than receiving money borrowed from other countries, as our government does on their behalf," he told Fortune. The current appropriation is just over one one-hundredth of one percent (.01 percent) of the federal budget -- approximately $1.35 per person per year, Jan McNamara, senior director of PBS’ Corporate Communications told PolitiFact in an email. It accounts for about 15 percent of the revenue for public television and public radio overall, she added. The way the system works is the Corporation for Public Broadcasting administers the funds with a "definitive, federally mandated" formula. The federal appropriation doesn’t go directly to PBS. "By statute, the majority of funds are distributed directly to the approximately 1,300 locally owned public television and radio stations currently serving viewers and listeners," McNamara said. "These locally governed, community-based stations depend on this critical seed money, which they leverage to raise the addition (sic) funds needed to provide content and services that are available to everyone, regardless of geography or ability to pay for a cable or satellite subscription." For each dollar in federal funding invested in local stations, the stations raise an additional $6 on their own, including millions of contributions from volunteer supporters as part of a public-private partnership. PBS, a nonprofit public broadcasting television network, has nearly 360 member stations, according to its website. Sesame Street has been one of its staple programs for about 43 years. Forbes also noted almost 60 percent of funding for public television comes from private donors or grants, with additional funding coming from dues paid by member stations. Big Bird's nest egg According to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting’s public affairs office, it provided $1.25 million to Sesame Street through a National Program Service grant to PBS in fiscal 2011, along with an $8 million grant to Sesame Workshop, for "The Electric Company: Phase II." And in fiscal 2012, Sesame Street got $1.4 million in funding through the National Program Service grant, which supports children’s and prime-time television programming that "engages, inspires, and educates," including other PBS programs such as Daniel Tiger's Neighborhood, PBS NewsHour and NOVA, officials said. According to Sesame Workshop’s most recent 990 form, filed for its 2010 year ending June 30, 2011, government grants and contributions accounted for about 5 percent of the $133 million revenue they brought in. Because much of the government money goes to other programs, the subsidy for Sesame Street is even lower. And MSN Money pointed out that Sesame brought in $46.9 million in licensing revenue for toys and other merchandise in 2011. So how much would slashing the public broadcasting appropriation impact the feathery, eight-foot-two-inch friend everyone’s so worried about? Not much, according to an interview CNN did with Sherrie Westin, executive vice president and chief marketing officer for Sesame Workshop. "Sesame Workshop receives very, very little funding from PBS. So, we are able to raise our funding through philanthropic, through our licensed product, which goes back into the educational programming, through corporate underwriting and sponsorship," Westin told CNN. "So quite frankly, you can debate whether or not there should be funding of public broadcasting. But when they always try to tout out Big Bird, and say we’re going to kill Big Bird – that is actually misleading, because Sesame Street will be here." On Monday, Westin blogged about the issue again on Sesame Workshop’s website, explaining her conversation on CNN was only "half the story." "Sesame Workshop has created a financially sustainable model to fund production of our educational programming here and around the world," Westin wrote. "But Sesame Street would not exist were it not for PBS and its local stations, which is the distribution system for Big Bird and friends to reach all children across the United States, particularly the low income children who need us most." "A CNN poll said 7% of the American public think that PBS gets as much as half the US budget! 30% think it’s 5%. In reality it’s 0.014%. Let’s keep that in perspective and also not forget the return on that investment: millions of children who have benefited from early childhood education brought to them by the letters, P. B. S.!" Our Ruling In its latest attempt to portray Romney as heartless, the Obama campaign is making a serious allegation that he wants to put one of America's most beloved children's characters in the unemployment line. Romney has been clear that his plan for PBS is not specific to Big Bird (nor to Jim Lehrer for that matter). He simply wants to end federal subsidies. It's a ridiculous stretch to equate that with firing the 8-foot-2 yellow bird. Just as Democrats have scared senior citizens about losing Medicare, they are now scaring preschoolers about losing Big Bird. Pants on Fire!

Barack Obama

2012-10-09T18:14:00

2012-10-08

['None']

snes-03560

Maps shows that areas with high democratic populations also have high crime rates.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/crime-rates-democrats-vote/

Politics

Dan Evon

Do Maps Show High Crime Rates Where Democrats Vote?

12 November 2016

['None']

vees-00412

VERA FILES FACT SHEET: Martial law arrest orders and what they mean

none

http://verafiles.org/articles/martial-law-arrest-orders-and-what-they-mean

An arrest order is a document issued by the Department of National Defense instructing the armed forces and other law enforcement groups to take into custody people accused of rebellion or invasion.

Martial Law in Mindanao,Rebellion,Lorenzana,Supreme Court,terrorism

VERA FILES FACT SHEET: Martial law arrest orders and what they mean

June 19, 2017

['None']

snes-00223

A Harvard study proved that “unvaccinated children pose no risk” to other kids.

mostly false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/harvard-study-unvaccinated-children/

Medical

Alex Kasprak

Did a Harvard Study Prove That “Unvaccinated Children Pose No Risk” to Other Kids?

14 August 2018

['None']

snes-02695

President Zuma of South Africa purchased the world's most expensive plane.

mostly false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jacob-zuma-aircraft/

Politics

Dan Evon

Did South Africa’s President Purchase the World’s Most Expensive Aircraft?

3 April 2017

['None']

pomt-01924

Says Charlie Crist signed "the nation’s harshest marijuana laws."

mostly false

/florida/statements/2014/jun/27/progressive-choice/charlie-crist-signed-nations-harshest-marijuana-la/

A radio ad attacking former Gov. Charlie Crist accuses him of signing the nation’s "harshest marijuana laws." And it’s aimed at a voting bloc that overwhelmingly sides with Democrats: African-Americans. "While Crist was coddling the gun lobby, he was cracking down on us," says the ad from Progressive Choice Florida, a 501(c)4 group that’s been attacking Crist from the left. " Passing maximum sentencing laws. Signing the nation’s harshest marijuana laws. And enacting the country’s strictest penalties against non-violent offenders – many of whom just happen to be black." We wanted to know if Crist had signed "the nation’s harshest marijuana laws." That claim caught our attention because one of Crist’s chief backers is attorney John Morgan, who’s been bankrolling a campaign urging a constitutional amendment to allow medical marijuana. Our research showed that Florida is tough on those busted for pot, but that reputation began long before Crist was governor. Marijuana law during Crist’s tenure Progressive Choice Floridapointed to two bills signed by Crist: House Bill 173, the Marijuana Grow House Eradication Act in 2008, and the so-called "Bong Bill" outlawing drug paraphernalia in 2010. The grow house law made it a second-degree felony to grow 25 or more plants; the previous law set the threshold at 300 plants. The bill also allowed law enforcement to destroy bulky grow house equipment and simply take photos or video. While law enforcement widely supported the bill, advocates for marijuana and the ACLU of Florida opposed it. The bill passed the Senate unanimously and only one representative, Broward Democrat Evan Jenne, voted against it. Jenne told PolitiFact Florida that he opposed the provision that allowed law enforcement to destroy evidence. Though Crist signed the bill, the champion of it was then-Republican Attorney General Bill McCollum, who two years later lost a primary in the governor’s race against Scott. William Shepherd, who worked for McCollum at the time, said he doesn’t know what "harshest" would mean or how Florida’s law compared to other states. (The federal standard was 100 plants.) However, he said the grow house bill was a major change for Florida. "We definitely ramped up the marijuana production laws," he said. In March 2008, Crist told a Miami Herald reporter that he favored Florida's tough drug laws and didn't support reviewing whether to lessen penalties for some crimes such as nonviolent drug possession. Two years later, the bong bill made it a crime to sell smoking devices such as pipes and bongs at most head shops. We found no evidence that Crist pushed hard for the bill, which he signed after the Legislature unanimously passed it in 2010. Were Florida laws 'harshest'? We reached out to experts on marijuana laws to ask if Florida held some sort of record for having "the nation’s harshest marijuana laws." Comparing state drug policies is difficult at best, because each state codifies offenses and sentences in different ways, according to Tamar Todd, an attorney with the pro-decriminalization Drug Policy Alliance. "One of the challenges of cross-state comparison is that some states might be harsher, in that cultivation of any amount is a felony with a harsh sentence, but at the same time cultivation in the presence of a minor is not a separate more serious offense," Todd said. "Other states classify crimes differently than degrees of felonies." He added that how much time offenders actually get may differ, because states often employ diversion programs or habitual offender statutes, muddying the waters concerning sentencing records. Other advocates for legalizing at least some uses of marijuana or reforming marijuana laws told PolitiFact Florida that the state had long had a reputation for tough marijuana laws -- and that didn’t suddenly occur when Crist was governor. Allen St. Pierre, executive director of NORML which advocates for reform of marijuana laws, pointed to a handful of states that he said have laws that are equally or more harsh than Florida’s including Georgia, Texas, Idaho, Missouri and Wyoming. "Florida, ever since the early 1980s, has historically (and) traditionally always had pretty harsh laws," St. Pierre said. The bills Crist signed as governor didn’t change Florida’s reputation in terms of marijuana laws, he said. "In general, no drug policy reform group, including NORML, viewed the passage of the 2008 anti-cultivation laws as being particularly harsh as much as we did out-of-touch with where most rest of the country is moving politically on cannabis policy," St. Pierre told PolitiFact Florida. Paul Armentano, deputy director of NORML, wrote an article in 2011 about "The Five Worst states to get busted with pot." The "top 5," in order of severity, were Oklahoma, Texas, Florida, Louisiana and Arizona. "No other state routinely punishes minor marijuana more severely than does the Sunshine State," he wrote. "Under Florida law, marijuana possession of 20 grams or less (about two-thirds of an ounce) is a criminal misdemeanor punishable by up to one-year imprisonment and a $1,000 fine. Marijuana possession over 20 grams, as well as the cultivation of even a single pot plant, are defined by law as felony offenses – punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine." A Progressive Choice Florida spokeswoman cited an analysis of state laws and sentencing guidelines written by Jon Gettman, a former NORML director. He wrote that, "The states with the most severe overall penalties for marijuana possession are (in order of severity) Florida, Montana, Arkansas, Georgia and Oregon (tied) and Missouri." But Gettman’s article was based on 2007 arrests and laws in place before Crist was governor. NORML board member Florida attorney Norm Kent told PolitiFact Florida that he considers our state’s laws "draconian and amongst the toughest" but doesn’t consider Florida the worst in the nation. (Kent endorsed Crist earlier this year.) "What happens on the third strike in Texas is you can get life in prison if it’s a marijuana charge," he said. Our ruling A radio ad says that Charlie Crist signed "the nation’s harshest marijuana laws." As governor, Crist signed laws that cracked down on grow houses and bong sales. But both bills sailed through the Legislature without any particular advocacy from Crist. In both cases, the laws didn’t change Florida’s pre-existing reputation as having tough marijuana laws. We rate this claim Mostly False.

Progressive Choice Florida

2014-06-27T16:36:25

2014-06-23

['Charlie_Crist']

pomt-13518

There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they’ve been ordered to leave the United States, including large numbers of violent criminals.

mostly true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/sep/01/donald-trump/donald-trump-mostly-right-about-countries-refusing/

In his immigration speech in Phoenix, Donald Trump said he’d buck a trend of countries refusing to allow people deported from America to return to their native homes. "There are at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they’ve been ordered to leave the United States," Trump said, "including large numbers of violent criminals. They won’t take them back. So we say, ‘Okay, we'll keep them.’ "Not going to happen with me, not going to happen with me." We decided to check to see if Trump was correct about the number of countries unwilling "to take their people back," and whether they include "large numbers of violent criminals." 23 countries The figure Trump cites comes directly from a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement document dated July 14, 2016. The document, which outlines a speech from Daniel Ragsdale, the deputy director of ICE, says that the process for removing those ordered to leave the United States is affected by the range of cooperation offered by foreign nations. As of May 2, 2016, ICE documented 23 countries that are considered "recalcitrant" in taking back their citizens. The list includes Afghanistan, Algeria, China, Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Somalia and Zimbabwe. This classification was determined by a country’s cooperativeness with the deportation process, which included factors like refusing to grant flights back into the country, the country's political environment and the timeliness of granting travel documents. Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, wrote a letter to Jeh Johnson, the secretary of Homeland Security, that also cited the 23-county figure. "Lives are being lost, the public’s safety is at risk, and Americans families are suffering," Grassley wrote. "It cannot continue." Both Grassley’s letter and Ragsdale’s comments say the problem has been exacerbated by a 2001 U.S. Supreme Court decision. In Zadvydas vs. Davis, the Supreme Court ruled that the United States can hold convicted criminals only for 180 days if a country refuses to take them back. Grassley said in the fiscal year 2015, 2,166 individuals were released after being held for more than 180 days. Based on the Immigration and Nationality Act, the secretary of state is required to stop giving visas to immigrants or nonimmigrants after being notified the country is hindering the accepting of one of its citizens. Yet according to Grassley and the New York Times, that’s only happened once -- in 2001 against the nation of Guyana. Violent offenders So Trump’s number is well sourced. But what about his claim that these people include "large numbers of violent criminals"? That’s harder to verify with concrete data. According to ICE statistics, 19,723 people living in the United States were convicted of a combined 64,197 crimes in 2015. The data notes that the number of convictions is higher than the number of illegal immigrants because one illegal immigrant may have more than one conviction. The top three types of convictions for people living here illegally are traffic or drug-related offenses. Driving under the influence, traffic offenses, and the use, sale or possession of illegal drugs account for almost half, 30,104, of all convictions. Violent offenses make up a smaller percentage of all convictions, but still, add up. There were 1,728 assault convictions, 1,347 domestic violence and 101 homicide convictions, among people living here illegally, according to ICE. There is no crime data specifically on people who were to be released back to their country. Our ruling Trump said "at least 23 countries that refuse to take their people back after they’ve been ordered to leave the United States, including large numbers of violent criminals. They won’t take them back." Trump’s figure comes from the federal department in charge of immigration and is accurate. But the second half of his statement about "large numbers of violent criminals" is harder to verify. Out of all convictions for anyone known to be in the United States illegally in 2015, 101 were for homicide while more than 30,000 were for traffic-related or drug-related offenses. We rate Trump’s claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/eecb7764-4a59-4ef8-9f7b-5bc6e1d313dd

Donald Trump

2016-09-01T17:02:54

2016-08-31

['United_States']

snes-01981

A shoplifter who stabbed a Marine collecting Toys for Tots was then whomped by other Marines.

mostly true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/marine-layer/

Humor

Snopes Staff

Marine Stabbed by Shoplifter?

16 December 2010

['United_States_Marine_Corps']

pomt-05545

We gave every public employee in the state the freedom to choose whether or not they want to be in a union.

false

/wisconsin/statements/2012/apr/09/scott-walker/gov-scott-walker-says-wisconsin-gave-every-public-/

As he prepares for a recall election, Republican Gov. Scott Walker is defending his record in various media appearances. In a March 19, 2012 appearance on Fox News, Walker told talk host Greta Van Susteren that big out-of-state unions were behind the protests in Madison last spring -- and are leading the recall effort against him now. "The national unions, for them, this is all about the money," Walker said. "It’s not just about the budget or collective bargaining. We gave nearly every, well, we gave every public employee in the state the freedom to choose whether or not they want to be in a union or not and I think that’s really why this is a Waterloo for them." That caught our attention. One of the most controversial aspects of Walker’s law stripping collective bargaining for public workers was who the bill did not cover: Police and firefighter union members. The law limits the ability of public unions to bargain collectively for anything except raises controlled for inflation. It ended bargaining over benefits, overtime and work conditions. It also required annual union recertification votes and made payment of union dues optional. The governor got the crux of the new law right -- that state workers could opt out of paying dues and each year the unions would face a recertification vote. Some unions chose to fold rather than be subjected to the annual effort. But Walker said the new law applied to "all" state workers. The law also mandated that local employees participating in the state pension and health systems contribute at least 12.6 percent of their health care premiums and at least 5.8 percent of their salary toward their pension. Again, this did not apply to police and firefighters. At the time the law was passed, Walker said he did not include police and firefighters in the changes so there was no question that law enforcement would be available in the event of strikes or work stoppages. We asked Walker campaign spokeswoman Ciara Matthews about the governor’s characterization of the law. She acknowledged Walker did not mention the police and firefighter exemptions and said the governor was speaking in generalities for a national audience and didn’t have time to be more specific. "He was attempting to give the viewers outside of the state of Wisconsin an idea of how things shaped up here," Matthews said. Matthews added that Walker might have given a shorthand answer because he felt rushed: "I think from a contextural standpoint, Greta tends to be a quick interviewer." Walker was interviewed by Van Susteren in person in a Milwaukee studio. It lasted 16 minutes and included asking him respond to a previously recorded interview with Madison firefighters union president Mahlon Mitchell, who is running for lieutenant governor in the recall election. What about Waterloo? Walker’s statement also prompted us to dust off our history books. He’s not the first politician to refer to this 200-year-old European battle when it comes to an important election. But does that match up to history? The Battle of Waterloo took place June 18, 1815, at the border of France and Belgium and it was Napoleon’s final defeat by a coalition of British, German, Belgium, Dutch and Prussian forces, and the end of his role as Emperor of France. Napoleon attacked the combined forces but wound up losing. "Waterloo decisively saw the end of 26 years of fighting between the European powers and France. The French star was eclipsed and the German began its ascendancy. For Britain, Waterloo is not just a battle. It is an institution," according to Britishbattles.com. So what does this bloody battle have to do with Wisconsin politics? Not much, according to Matthews. Walker, she said, was trying to say that the election was an "all or nothing" proposition for the unions. The Waterloo details aren’t as important, she said. Our conclusion Walker appeared on national TV and discussed the state’s repeal of collective bargaining rights for most public employees. The governor knows the extent of the law, and that it does not cover police and firefighters. Indeed, he started his answer apparently with that in mind: "We gave nearly every, well, we gave every public employee in the state the freedom to choose whether or not they want to be in a union or not," he said. Walker almost got it right. But he then backed away. And in the course of doing so, he got it wrong. We rate his statement False.

Scott Walker

2012-04-09T09:00:00

2012-03-19

['None']

pomt-01463

I recently had the opportunity to vote to give the president limited authority to begin strikes against terrorists in Iraq and Syria.

false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/oct/01/bruce-braley/bruce-braley-says-he-give-president-limited-author/

During this busy time for domestic and international news, the emergence of the Islamist militant group ISIS in Syria and Iraq -- and how the United States should respond -- is attracting much of the media’s attention. So it’s no surprise that the topic came up during an Iowa Senate debate between Democratic U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley and Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst. Braley and Ernst are locked in a tight contest that could help decide control of the Senate. During the Sept. 28, 2014, debate, Braley said, "I recently had the opportunity to vote to give the president limited authority to begin strikes against terrorists in Iraq and Syria. ISIS is a threat that must be stopped, and any time American citizens are attacked by a terrorist group, they need to be brought to justice or to the grave. That's what's happening and that's what we'll continue to do." So did he vote to give the president authority to begin strikes? Actually, no. On Sept. 17, less than two weeks before the debate, the House took two votes relevant to this question. The first was whether to attach an amendment -- one related to the situation in the Middle East -- to a broad spending bill. The House voted, 273-156, to attach the amendment to the bill. The second was on passage of the bill itself, including the amendment. The bill passed, 319-108. In both cases, Braley voted in favor, along with a bipartisan majority. However, in the debate, Braley misstated what he was voting on. Here’s the relevant text from the amendment that passed along with the rest of the spending bill: "The Secretary of Defense is authorized, in coordination with the Secretary of State, to provide assistance, including training, equipment, supplies, and sustainment, to appropriately vetted elements of the Syrian opposition and other appropriately vetted Syrian groups and individuals. … Nothing in this section shall be construed to constitute a specific statutory authorization for the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities or into situations wherein hostilities are clearly indicated by the circumstances." In other words, this legislative language is all about the United States providing training and supplies to the Syrian rebels -- not about authorizing the president "to begin strikes against terrorists in Iraq and Syria." "I don’t see how Rep. Braley’s remarks can be construed as accurate at all," said Lance Janda, a military historian at Cameron University. "He did not vote to use U.S. forces to strike targets in Iraq or Syria. All he voted for was the authorization to arm, train, and equip elements of the Syrian opposition to fight ISIS." Indeed, President Barack Obama has indicated so far that he doesn’t need congressional approval for strikes. Obama has been ordering airstrikes in Iraq and Syria in recent weeks, claiming authorization under the Authorization for Use of Military Force that Congress passed in 2001, after the 9/11 attacks. Congress approved that authorization years before Braley entered Congress. In recent weeks, the White House hasn’t pushed hard for new, specific authorization for striking ISIS, and while some individual lawmakers have urged Congress to debate passage of a new authorization, congressional leaders have been content to let Obama take the lead. When we contacted Braley’s campaign staff, they offered a few points of additional context. One is that the moderator and Ernst followed up Braley’s comments without challenging his wording. The moderator followed Braley by saying, "Ms. Ernst, just to follow up, would you have voted as Congressman Braley did to allow that attack to go forward?" She responded, "Yes, I would have supported that vote also." In a similar vein, the campaign noted that Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., seemed to indicate during floor debate that "this proposal strictly limits the use of United States ground forces in the region. ... Any airstrikes or aid would come at no additional cost to our country." In the debate, Braley "clearly spoke of his vote in Congress to facilitate strikes against ISIS in Syria by training and equipping Syrian rebels, and Joni Ernst agreed that Braley was right to have taken that vote," Braley spokesman Sam Lau told PolitiFact. But while these are points worth noting, what this ultimately means is that the other speakers were just as misinformed (or distracted) as Braley was about what the legislation actually said. Finally, the campaign pointed to the statement Obama made on Sept. 18 after the authorization passed Congress. (Obama signed it into law the next day.) Braley’s camp suggested that Obama was indicating that what Congress passed was meant to lead to strikes to push back against terrorists. But that’s not how we read Obama’s comments. In the statement in question, Obama was careful to frame the legislation narrowly. He talked quite specifically about a "plan to train and equip the opposition in Syria so they can help push back these terrorists. … With this new effort, we’ll provide training and equipment to help them grow stronger and take on ISIL terrorists inside Syria. … The American forces that have been deployed to Iraq do not and will not have a combat mission; their mission is to advise and assist our partners on the ground. As I told our troops yesterday, we can join with allies and partners to destroy ISIL without American troops fighting another ground war in the Middle East." Our ruling Braley said, "I recently had the opportunity to vote to give the president limited authority to begin strikes against terrorists in Iraq and Syria." Braley did cast votes recently on U.S. policy in Syria and Iraq, but they concerned supplying and assisting the Syrian rebels -- not whether to give the president the authority to launch strikes. Some have even criticized Congress for not directly voting to authorize strikes. We rate Braley's claim False.

Bruce Braley

2014-10-01T17:06:38

2014-09-28

['Iraq', 'Syria']

hoer-01301

Indian Arrest Law Chain Letter Womens Right to Refuse to Go With Police at Night

true messages

https://www.hoax-slayer.net/indian-arrest-law-chain-letter-womens-right-to-refuse-to-go-with-police-at-night/

Brett M. Christensen

Indian Arrest Law Chain Letter Womens Right to Refuse to Go With Police at Night

February 23, 2017

['None']

goop-02631

Daniel Craig, Rachel Weisz Marriage In Trouble,

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/daniel-craig-marriage-in-trouble-rachel-weisz-split/

Holly Nicol

Daniel Craig, Rachel Weisz Marriage NOT In Trouble, Despite Claim

4:38 am, July 28, 2017

['None']

pomt-03943

Says "If Oregon’s Legislature simply authorizes $450 million for the CRC, it will … leave Oregon holding the bag for a great deal more cost responsibility."

false

/oregon/statements/2013/feb/20/bob-stacey/will-washington-leave-oregon-holding-bag-columbia-/

Lawmakers in Oregon and Washington are expected to vote this year on local funding for the Columbia River Crossing, raising the stakes of the political wrangling around the replacement of the Interstate 5 bridge. Inthe early planning stages of the CRC, officials in Oregon and Washington agreed to split the cost of the bridge, which could be as much as $3.5 billion. Oregon’s Gov. John Kitzhaber included $450 million in state funding for the bridge in his proposed 2013-15 budget. (The rest of the money is supposed to come from Washington, the federal government and tolls on the bridge.) Metro Councilor Bob Stacey says Oregon could wind up paying more, thanks to provisions of a 2012 bill passed by the Washington Legislature that approves tolling of the new Interstate 5 corridor. Amendments to that bill put a $3.412 billion funding cap on the project and barred tolling on the Interstate 205 bridge, which also crosses the Columbia River between Portland and Vancouver. In a memo to the Metro Council, Stacey said that the Oregon Legislature needs to fight back with provisions of its own -- making light rail a priority and limiting Oregon’s spending on the project to $450 million. "If Oregon’s Legislature simply authorizes $450 million for the CRC, it will be implicitly accepting Washington’s limitations, which will leave Oregon holding the bag for a great deal more cost responsibility — or with a great deal less from the CRC project for our communities." Mega-projects like interstate bridges are complicated, but we were surprised to hear that something Washington did could leave Oregon "holding the bag." We thought we’d check. First, let’s look at tolling. Federal law generally prohibits tolling on an interstate bridge unless the money is used to pay for the bridge. That makes the Washington Legislature’s prohibition of tolling on the I-205 bridge meaningless because neither state could do it without a federal waiver. With no tolls on I-205, Stacey could be right in saying that drivers would avoid the I-5 bridge and go to I-205. It is also possible, as he says, that tolls from the new bridge could be less than projected. That would create a shortfall in paying for the bridge. If that happens, who is holding the bag? To answer that, let’s go back to the original interstate agreement to build the bridge. In 2006, Oregon and Washington representatives signed an intergovernmental agreement stating that both state transportation departments are "to jointly be responsible for the cost of the Columbia River Crossing Project." Sounded like an even split to us, but to be sure,we checked with officials in both Oregon and Washington. Pat Egan, chair of the Oregon Transportation Commission, says jointly means equally. "That’s the declared working agreement," Egan said. Egan said he’s confident the final price tag for the bridge will be closer to $3 billion than $3.5 billion. But even if the bridge exceeds the cap, he said, it will be up to both legislative bodies to approve more funding. North of the river, we talked to Sen. Ann Rivers, the La Center Republican who wrote the Washington project cap amendment. She wants to control the costs but doesn’t see Washington doing that unilaterally. "I think we can count on overruns and I expect them to be split evenly," she said. But what about that cap that Washington passed? History shows it may be better to think of the cap as a goal. Legislative bodies pass capital plans, including caps. Sometimes costs go up. Lawmakers don’t like it, but they usually approve more money. The city of Portland approved additional funds for the Portland Aerial Tram when it went over budget, for instance, and the Oregon Transportation Commission did the same this year for the rebuilding of U.S. 20. In the end, Stacey’s right that if legislators greenlight the CRC, the state could ultimately owe more than $450 million on its share of the bridge. But setting a cap on the project or limiting Oregon’s share with legislative riders won’t stop that. And thanks to the agreement between Oregon and Washington to pay for the bridge jointly, if Oregon ever needs to pay more, Washington would need to join in. PolitiFact Oregon doesn’t do prophecy. We can’t say whether the bridge will be over budget -- as much as history might tempt us to offer a guess. What we can say is that the Washington toll rule won’t matter. The Washington Legislature’s cap won’t matter. Bottom line? The intergovernmental agreement covers the responsibility. Both states are left holding the bag. Stacey’s statement is inaccurate. We rule it False.

Bob Stacey

2013-02-20T03:00:00

2012-11-26

['Oregon']

pomt-01634

Says President Barack Obama released a statement on the "death of brother Robin Williams before ... a statement on brother Michael Brown."

true

/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/26/cornel-west/cornel-west-obama-reacted-quicker-robin-williams-d/

President Barack Obama is being criticized on the left and right for his response to the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Mo., police officer. Conservatives have accused Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder of siding with protesters before the facts of the shooting have been established. Some liberals say Obama has been too silent on the case. In an Aug. 25 interview with Salon, ultra-liberal African-American professor Cornel West blasted Obama for posing as a progressive while actually being a "counterfeit" centrist. Obama’s need to find the middle ground, West argued, is apparent in his recent handling of the Ferguson protests. "The Obama administration has been silent. Completely silent," West said. "All of a sudden now, you get this uprising and what is the response? Well, as we know, you send out a statement on the death of brother Robin Williams before you sent out a statement on brother Michael Brown." We wondered if Obama commented on Williams’ death before he addressed Brown’s. A tale of two statements It's important to note that the two deaths are hardly similar. Williams was a worldwide celebrity and news of his death quickly spread. His death did not spark protests or involve questions of police misconduct. Statements from political leaders and the White House when celebrities die are often fast and received without controversy. Brown, meanwhile, was mostly an unknown figure to the world when he was killed Aug. 9, and it took time for the story of his death to spread. The New York Times, for instance did not put a story about Brown or the city of Ferguson on its front page until Aug. 12. But as comparisons go, West has his facts correct. Obama issued a statement hours after Williams’ death was announced by police officials on Aug. 11. In his statement, Obama praised the late actor as "one of a kind" and offered his condolences to Williams’ loved ones and well-wishers. "He arrived in our lives as an alien -- but he ended up touching every element of the human spirit," Obama wrote. "He made us laugh. He made us cry. He gave his immeasurable talent freely and generously to those who needed it most -- from our troops stationed abroad to the marginalized on our own streets." Brown was shot at noon Central Time on Aug. 9, and news broke of the police-involved shooting that afternoon. Obama, who was on vacation in Martha’s Vineyard at the time, did not release a statement until Aug. 12, three days after Brown’s death. That’s also one day after his statement about Williams. Obama said that Brown’s passing was "heartbreaking" and offered his and Michelle’s condolences to Brown’s family and community. "I urge everyone in Ferguson, Mo., and across the country, to remember this young man through reflection and understanding," Obama wrote. "We should comfort each other and talk with one another in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds. Along with our prayers, that’s what Michael and his family, and our broader American community, deserve." In his statement, Obama alluded to an earlier statement made by Holder. Holder’s statement, which did not mention Brown by name and largely discussed the role of federal investigations, was released on Aug. 11 -- two days after Brown’s death. Seen but can’t be heard An Aug. 22, a New York Times/CBS poll reported that 60 percent of African-Americans were satisfied with Obama’s response, compared to 35 percent of whites. But Obama’s words and actions around Brown have been targeted by conservatives, liberals and netizens alike. A day after Brown’s shooting, an online petition was launched, calling for Obama to issue a statement on the deaths of Brown and two other black men, and to demand congressional action. On Aug. 11, Twitter users began pointing out the disparity between his quickness to comment on Williams’ passing and his silence on Brown’s death, reported the International Business Times. Obama made additional comments about Ferguson on Aug. 14, describing Brown’s death again as "tragic and heartbreaking." Following the statement, conservative columnists accused him of being racist against whites. Meanwhile, the executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, the labor union for law enforcement officials across the nation, said to the Hill that Obama was being unhelpful by "discussing police tactics from Martha’s Vineyard." When Obama discussed the subject again on Aug. 18, speaking only of the reaction and investigation, his comments were blasted as "tone deaf and disappointing" by an MSNBC analyst and drew derisive complaints from Twitter users who wanted to see a more emotive, assertive stance. And Obama’s recent decision to send a delegation of White House officials to Brown’s Aug. 25 funeral sparked additional ire from the right. All this has proved that Obama is too polarizing a figure to talk freely and talk effectively about matters of race, wrote Vox’s Ezra Klein. According to Fox News’ Howard Kurtz, Obama’s past comments and actions on Trayvon Martin and other racially tinged cases over the years had been equally divisive, and so Obama has learned to keep mum. Our ruling West said that Obama released "a statement on the death of brother Robin Williams before (he) sent out a statement on brother Michael Brown." While the two cases are hardly similar, West is right on the facts. It took Obama three days to issue a statement regarding Brown’s Aug. 9 death and about three hours to comment on Williams’ passing, which was reported on Aug. 11. We rate West’s claim True.

Cornel West

2014-08-26T13:55:25

2014-08-25

['Barack_Obama', 'Michael_D._Brown', 'Robin_Williams']

tron-03143

Photo of Nancy Pelosi Posing as Miss Lube Rack 1955

fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/miss-lube-rack-1951-05012013/

politics

Photo of Nancy Pelosi Posing as Miss Lube Rack 1955

Mar 17, 2015

['None']

pomt-04956

Says David Dewhurst "explicitly advocated" a guest worker program for all illegal immigrants.

mostly true

/texas/statements/2012/jul/26/ted-cruz/ted-cruz-says-david-dewhurst-advocated-guest-worke/

In a televised debate July 23, 2012, the Texas GOP candidates for U.S. Senate sought to bolster their conservative credentials before the July 31 primary runoff election. "Amnesty" is a dirty word in this context, and Ted Cruz tacked his opponent’s name right onto it. "The Dewhurst amnesty," Cruz claimed, "would take every single illegal alien in the United States and give them a guest worker permit." His source for that, he said, was a 2007 speech by Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst "where he explicitly advocated a guest worker program for every single illegal alien in the United States today" -- more than 11 million people, by the Pew Hispanic Center’s 2010 estimate, though of course not all would be adults qualified for a guest-worker program. Is that what Dewhurst said? Lauren Thurston, a spokeswoman in Dewhurst’s state office, emailed us a copy of the February 17, 2007, speech given when Dewhurst was named "Mr. South Texas," an annual honor bestowed by a Laredo civic group. The speech’s reference to guest workers is this: "I support secure borders both north and south and I support a guest worker program for those here today illegally. Labor and skilled workers are critical to our Texas economy." Thurston didn’t address our request for more information about the program Dewhurst said he supported. Dewhurst campaign spokesman Matt Hirsch told us by email that Dewhurst was not referring to any specific program and has consistently opposed "any amnesty." Dewhurst faced questions about his 2007 speech in a July 24, 2012, interview by Andrea Watkins of Houston’s KRIV-TV, which aired the debate; his campaign posted video of the interview online. Excerpts: Andrea Watkins: Did you support a guest worker program in that speech? David Dewhurst: In the speech, then and now is my same position. There’s no room for any discussion on doing anything until we secure the border. ... Once the border is secure, would you still support a guest worker program, as you were saying in that speech? I would want to look at all of our options and see what is available. … What I was really focused on is that we need a sensible legal immigration policy. That’s what I’m after. Mr. Cruz thinks, though, that a guest worker program that you were supporting is even more broad than the amnesty … the new policy that president Obama has adopted … President Obama would allow about eight hundred thousand people in the United States to stay, and your guest worker program would be for everyone who is in the United States illegally. First of all, it’s not my guest worker program. I wasn’t recommending any specific changes to our immigration policy, just that once we secure our borders -- and the federal government has not done a good job -- then Congress, I believe, needs to take up the issue and look at … how we try and identify those people that are here, that are national security risks to the United States. … Again, I’ve always been categorically opposed to amnesty, which is a pathway to citizenship for those who live here right now. PolitiFact researchers often explore different uses of the word "amnesty" in connection with illegal immigrants, recently reaching a definition similar to Dewhurst’s "pathway to citizenship" in a June 20, 2012, fact-check. Generally, amnesty consists of giving a group of lawbreakers a permanent guarantee that they won’t be punished for their offense. In immigration debates, we wrote, it is most accurate when applied to policies that give illegal immigrants a way to achieve permanent legal status. So: A pathway, without punishment. Permanently. We searched the Nexis newspaper archive for instances of Dewhurst otherwise declaring his views on guest worker programs and found one mention. An April 25, 2007, Houston Chronicle news story says Dewhurst told the paper in an interview that he "has long urged Congress to enact a guest worker program for immigrants." The story does not quote Dewhurst in any way about securing the border. We did find, though, stories and opinion pieces mentioning prominent Texas Republicans’ support in 2006 and 2007 for immigration reforms urged by President George W. Bush that included a guest-worker program. Congress failed to reach agreement on such a plan in September 2006. A McClatchy News Service news story June 2, 2007, said that different forms of the guest worker program had specified a maximum number of participants that ranged from 200,000 to 600,000 per year. We also note that in May 2012, Dewhurst accused Cruz of supporting amnesty. Dewhurst got a Pants on Fire rating from us June 1, 2012, for his radio ad claiming his opponent helped steer two groups that led the national push for amnesty. Cruz was on the board of one group Dewhurst named -- the Hispanic Alliance for Prosperity Institute -- and that group wasn’t even close to leading the drive for comprehensive immigration reform (possibly to include a limited path to legal residency). Our ruling Dewhurst’s 2007 speech advocates a guest-worker program for "those here today illegally," a view he seems to have aired again in an interview a couple months later and one that he also has not forsworn, far as we can tell. So, it can fairly be said Dewhurst advocated a guest-worker program for illegal immigrants already here. Would every single illegal immigrant be in the program, as Cruz says? As a practical matter, probably not, but Dewhurst’s speech laid out no limits. His speech did, however, cite the need for border security, and of late, Dewhurst has said secure borders should be ensured before a guest-worker program is implemented. This significant clarification isn’t acknowledged in Cruz’s claim, which we rate Mostly True.

Ted Cruz

2012-07-26T11:04:14

2012-07-23

['None']

vogo-00245

Following the Convention Center Money: Fact Check TV

none

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/mayor-2012/following-the-convention-center-money-fact-check-tv/

Following the Convention Center Money: Fact Check TV

April 30, 2012

['None']

pomt-01452

Says female genital mutilation is "a central African problem," not an Islamic problem, as Bill Maher suggested.

mostly true

/punditfact/statements/2014/oct/02/reza-aslan/fact-checking-reza-aslans-retort-bill-maher/

Comedian and HBO host Bill Maher is outspoken about his atheism, a fact not lost on many viewers of his recent rant about the passive approach of some liberals toward human rights abuses in Muslim countries. Yet a scholar of religion called his commentary "not very sophisticated" on national TV. Why? Maher was condemning the collective uproar over racist, homophobic or distasteful comments by American celebrities Donald Sterling, Jonah Hill, Rush Limbaugh and Mel Gibson when more serious offenses against women in Muslim countries are usually overlooked. "Not only does the Muslim world have something in common with ISIS, it has too much in common with ISIS," Maher said at one point. As an example, Maher brought up female genital mutilation, which refers to procedures that remove, in part or in whole, external genitalia for a non-medical reason. International groups such as the World Health Organization, UNICEF and Human Rights Watch condemn the practice as a flagrant example of gender inequality -- one that carries risks of prolonged bleeding, infection, infertility and complications during birth. When performed, the procedure is usually done on young girls. Maher said 91 percent of Egyptian women and 98 percent of Somali women have been cut that way. CNN Tonight hosts Don Lemon and Alisyn Camerota picked up this thread the following day in an interview with Reza Aslan, an author and University of California-Riverside professor of religious studies. Aslan criticized Maher for making "facile arguments" when he generalized about Muslims and mislabeled female genital mutilation an Islamic problem. "It's a central African problem," Aslan said. "Eritrea has almost 90 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Ethiopia has 75 percent female genital mutilation. It's a Christian country. Nowhere else in the Muslim, Muslim-majority states is female genital mutilation an issue." Aslan later tweeted an infographic showing a swath of African countries where female genital mutilation is concentrated. Is Aslan’s point accurate? The map, taken from a July 2013 UNICEF report, shows the percentage of girls and women ages 15-49 who have undergone female genital mutilation in 27 Central African countries and two Middle Eastern countries (Iraq and Yemen). Seven of the top eight countries with very high rates of female circumcision are majority Muslim, including the "almost universal" levels in Somalia, Egypt, Guinea and Djibouti. But Eritrea, as Aslan said, is No. 5 among countries with high prevalence at 89 percent, and it is home to more Christians than Muslims, according to Pew Research’s Religion and Public Life Project. Ethiopia, which is 63 percent Christian and 34 percent Muslim, has a moderately high rate of 74 percent, making it No. 11 on the list. So the countries in which female genital cutting is a practice are mostly Muslim, but they are not exclusively Muslim. Of the 29 countries tracked by UNICEF, 14 are home to more Christians than Muslims. The two Middle Eastern, and predominantly Muslim, countries, Yemen and Iraq, have much lower rates of 23 percent and 8 percent, respectively. Other majority-Muslim countries, such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, are not listed. "It is extremely clear that in many countries that have a very high population of Muslims, female genital mutilation/cutting is not practiced," said Francesca Moneti, the UNICEF senior child protection specialist who co-authored the report. Experts say the practice stems from social pressure to conform to traditions passed down for centuries -- one that predates not just Islam but also Judaism and Christianity. (The origins of the practice are subject to some dispute, but some scholars say it may correspond to areas of ancient civilizations, in which the cutting of females "signalled controlled fidelity and the certainty of paternity," the UNICEF report states.) In areas of high prevalence today, "this is perceived to be the normal and correct way of bringing up a girl," Moneti said. "If a girl is not cut, she may be considered impure and not marriageable, and she and her entire family may be ostracized." While it stems from neither Christianity nor Islam, some women in Chad, Guinea and Mauritania report a "religious requirement" as a benefit of cutting. Some communities consider a clitoridectomy -- one type of female genital mutilation -- as "sunna," which is Arabic for "tradition" or "duty," according to the UNICEF report. However, it is not a requirement of the Koran and has been specifically rejected by some Muslim leaders in Egypt. "There are different positions within Islam on the issue," said Marit Tolo Østebø, a University of Florida lecturer on human rights and culture, global sexuality, and anthropology of religion. "So you would have some Islamic scholars who will say, and might use parts from the hadith, to support that it’s good to do some cutting, but they will often emphasize that it is not an obligation." (The hadith refers to commentary about the Koran that explains the traditions of the Prophet Mohammad.) The fact that it is also practiced by Christians and other groups with ancient beliefs makes it hard to say the practice is particularly Muslim, she said. "Very often we tend to think that Islam is one thing -- that it’s one homogeneous religion," she said. "But if we just look at Christianity, there are so many different traditions and views on things. That is exactly the same in Islam." Aslan acknowledges that some may object to his "central African" characterization. He said he was trying to refer to the "stripe" of countries across Africa along the equator where this practice is common. However, UNICEF and international groups consider it a "global" problem since it happens in parts of Asia, Europe and North America because of immigration. "All of this is to say that while it is almost impossible to come up with some sort of connection that binds countries that have (a female genital mutilation) problem, it is clear that whatever that connection is, it’s not religious," Aslan told PunditFact. Our ruling Aslan rejected Maher’s characterization of female genital mutilation as an Islamic problem, saying instead that it’s actually "a central African problem." Due to immigration, the term "central African" may be too restrictive, but his larger point -- that this is not a problem in only Muslim countries -- is valid. Countries with majority-Christian populations also carry out this practice, while Islamic-majority countries like Iraq and Yemen have rates on the lower side. We rate Aslan’s claim Mostly True.

Reza Aslan

2014-10-02T17:27:44

2014-09-29

['Islam', 'Africa', 'Bill_Maher']

snes-05452

Donald Trump tweeted that his "grandparents didn't come to America" to see the country taken over by immigrants.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-fake-tweet/

Politics

Dan Evon

A Fake Tweet from Donald Trump

22 December 2015

['United_States', 'Donald_Trump']

pomt-14752

We're practically not allowed to use coal any more. What do we do with our coal? We ship it to China and they spew it in the air.

mostly false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/dec/15/donald-trump/donald-trump-exaggerates-how-much-coal-us-has-been/

Morning Joe host Joe Scarborough broke from questions about Muslims and immigration recently to ask Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump about another issue: what he would do about climate change. Trump initially responded by saying he wanted clean air and water. When Richard Haass, Council on Foreign Relations president and a panelist on the show, noted those are environmental concerns not directly related to climate change, Trump went on to tout the "many" environmental awards his company had won for building projects. After more prodding, Trump said,"Remember this. We're practically not allowed to use coal any more. What do we do with our coal? We ship it to China and they spew it in the air." A reader asked us to check whether this was accurate, so we took a closer look at Trump's full statement. Trump’s campaign did not reply to an inquiry for this article. "We're practically not allowed to use coal any more." There’s a grain of truth here, but it’s buried under significant exaggeration. In August 2015, as we’ve noted, the Obama administration announced Clean Power Plan regulations that would require power plants to reduce carbon emissions, from 2005 levels, by 32 percent by 2030. Advocates say the reduction would help ease global warming along with cutting emissions that create soot and smog. But the regulatory effort has alarmed the coal industry and its allies in Congress. "This administration’s regulatory assault on coal has had the intention — and increasingly the practical effect — of taking coal out of the market," said Luke Popovich, a spokesman for the National Mining Association. (The plan continues to be challenged in court.) Several factors — tighter government regulations, yes, but also lower natural gas prices, and changing consumer and industry preferences — have combined to reduce the amount of coal used for electricity generation by about one-sixth since 2008. But contrary to what Trump asserted, Popovich said, "coal is not going away." The U.S. electric power sector consumed 858.3 million tons of coal in 2013, the most recent full year for which Energy Information Administration data is available. It was a little over 1 billion tons in 2008, the last year before the most recent recession. Despite the decline, coal remains the single-most common source for electricity generation in the United States. In 2014, coal accounted for 39 percent of electricity generation, followed by natural gas at 27 percent, nuclear at 19 percent, hydropower at 6 percent, and other renewable sources at 7 percent. In its most recent future projection, the Energy Information Administration predicted that coal would maintain its top spot for electricity generation. Under the most basic economic parameters, coal would decline in future years due in large part to the retirement of aging coal-fired plants but would still account for 34 percent of energy generation in 2040. The enactment of policies that put coal at a disadvantage could drop that percentage further by 2040. Beyond electricity generation, 43.3 million tons of coal were used for other industrial purposes in the United States in 2013, and 2 million tons were allocated to commercial and institutional uses. In other words, coal usage may be slipping, but it’s still in wide use around the country and will continue to be a major source of energy for the next quarter century. "We ship (coal) to China and they spew it in the air." China is a major world user of coal, and scientists say its emissions are a major factor in climate change. But very little of the coal produced in the United States goes to China, so any change in United States trade policy would have little effect on China’s coal usage. According to the Energy Information Administration, the U.S. exported 1.8 million tons of coal to China in 2014. That’s less than 2 percent of all U.S. coal exports for that year, which totaled 97.3 million tons to all countries combined. By comparison, the United Kingdom imports more than five times as much U.S. coal as China does. Germany imports more than twice as much U.S. coal as China does, and the Netherlands imports about seven times as much. U.S. coal exports don’t account for much of what China uses, either. While U.S. coal has been gaining market share in Asia in recent years, the Energy Information Administration reported, it comprised less than 4 percent of Asia's coal imports in 2012, and less than 1 percent of total coal consumed by the four biggest Asian importers, which are China, Japan, India and South Korea. And since that figure is for all four countries combined, China’s share is just a fraction of that. The major foreign coal suppliers to China include Australia and Indonesia, Popovich said. The United States’ exports to China are "very small," he said. Our ruling Trump said, "We're practically not allowed to use coal any more. What do we do with our coal? We ship it to China and they spew it in the air." He has a point that the Obama administration has worked to reduce the amount of carbon emissions from U.S. sources, including placing additional burdens on power plants that burn coal. But Trump’s language vastly overstates his case. Despite recent declines in coal usage, electric companies in the United States still burned more than 850 million tons of coal in 2014, making it easily the most common energy source for electricity generation. Trump’s point about the U.S. shipping coal to China is even less accurate. U.S. coal exports to China comprise only a tiny fraction of all U.S. coal exports, and U.S. coal accounts for just a tiny fraction of all of the coal that China imports. The statement contains an element of truth but ignores critical facts that would give a different impression, so we rate it Mostly False.

Donald Trump

2015-12-15T19:46:37

2015-11-30

['China']

pomt-14143

There's only three countries in the entire world where there's no paid vacation by law, we happen to be one of them.

half-true

/florida/statements/2016/may/03/alan-grayson/grayson-right-about-lack-paid-vacation-us-misses-d/

American workers aren’t getting the compensation they deserve, in either time or money, U.S. Rep. Alan Grayson said at a recent Orlando debate. At a Senate campaign debate with U.S. Rep. David Jolly, R-Indian Shores, on April 25, 2016, Grayson said he supported a higher minimum wage. Providing more pay won’t hurt the businesses, he said, because other nations have higher wages with no ill effects. Furthermore, many countries also guarantee paid time off and their economies are fine, Grayson said. But not the United States. "There's only three countries in the entire world where there's no paid vacation by law, we happen to be one of them. The other two are in Africa," he said. That stat stopped us cold, and not just because we’re overdue for a long weekend off. Could Grayson be right that the United States is one of the only countries in the entire world that doesn’t grant a legal right to paid time off? Well, not exactly; Grayson’s campaign admitted he had misspoken. But available research shows he’s not far off the mark by suggesting that America is unique by not guaranteeing vacation time. Zero guarantee Grayson campaign spokesman David Damron told us via email that the Orlando Democrat meant to say only a handful of island nations in the Pacific Ocean joined the United States in not guaranteeing paid time off — not two countries in Africa. Those five countries, according to Wikipedia, were Kiribati, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, Palau and Nauru, he said. "The congressman accidentally conflated guaranteed paid vacation and paid sick time in his recollection of which countries fell into this category of weak worker protections with the United States, which was the basis for his reference to Africa (rather than the Pacific)," Damron wrote. We don’t take Wikipedia’s word as gospel, of course, but we could not get experts to speak to specific conditions in those five countries. Together, they have a population of around 300,000 — or about the population of Pittsburgh. The biggest repository of trusted data we found came from UCLA’s World Policy Analysis Center. Their database showed 13 countries, including the United States, with no guaranteed paid annual leave. Their list did include Kiribati, the Marshall Islands and Nauru, but also larger countries like Pakistan and India. Now, sometimes leave varies by how long a worker is at a job or some other classification. The World Policy Analysis Center’s database notes they "report the lowest amount of leave guaranteed to a worker with at least one year of tenure." The World Bank has its own detailed numbers for vacation available to workers based on tenure. The bank measured paid annual leave for 189 economies, including splitting some countries into large metro areas. The United States, for example, is split into New York and Los Angeles. The bank’s table did list five Pacific island nations that did not guarantee paid leave time for any workers with one or more years of service: The Federated States of Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, Kiribati, Palau and Tonga. It didn’t have data for Nauru, where unemployment among its 10,000 or so residents hovered around 90 percent in 2004. If it sounds to you like those aren’t the kind of countries normally associated with a global economic powerhouse like the United States, you’d be right. Most studies on this issue stuck to smaller sets of much more comparable nations. These usually involved grouping countries with words like "developed" or "rich." For example, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, an international economic group composed of 34 generally wealthy countries, notes that in 2014 the United States was its only member country with no statutory minimum of paid days off. A 2011 Business Insider roundup using data from global human resources firm Mercer said 39 developed countries offered more vacation time than the United States. Mercer’s Worldwide Benefit and Employment Guidelines, last updated in 2015, tracks 74 countries across the planet (the Pacific island nations Damron cited are absent). It notes the United States ranks the lowest among the surveyed countries with no "statutory holiday entitlement." Often cited in media reports is the Center for Economic and Policy Research’s 2013 study, No-Vacation Nation Revisited. That paper compared paid vacation and paid holidays in 21 countries with advanced economies: 16 in Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States. France led the pack with 30 paid vacation days. While the French get one paid holiday, Austrians get 13, plus 25 vacation days. The United Kingdom offers 28 vacation days. But almost every country in the CEPR study had more than 20 paid vacation days, except Canada and Japan, which only awarded 10. America came in dead last in guaranteed time off, with a grand total of zero days. Many employers do offer paid vacation and holidays, but there’s no law that says they must. And businesses do take advantage of the fact. "In the absence of a legal requirement for paid vacation and paid holidays, about one fourth of the U.S. workforce has no paid vacation or paid holidays in the course of their work year," the CEPR report read. "The sum of the average paid vacation and paid holidays ― 16 in total ― offered in the private sector in the United States would not meet even the minimum required by law in 19 other rich countries analyzed here." Our ruling Grayson said, "There's only three countries in the entire world where there's no paid vacation by law, we happen to be one of them." Grayson’s claim, taken literally, is incorrect. A Grayson spokesman said the congressman had fumbled his talking point a bit, especially the part about a pair of African nations being the other two. But the point he was trying to make to viewers and voters largely holds up. The United States is certainly one of just a few countries that does not guarantee paid vacation as a right, and an outlier among developed nations. In that sense, Grayson’s claim is partially accurate. We rate it Half True.

Alan Grayson

2016-05-03T14:03:28

2016-04-25

['None']

pomt-06041

Mitt Romney’s and Bain Capital’s profits from KB Toys, which later went out of business, were "described by the Boston Herald as ‘disgusting.’"

mostly false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/jan/13/winning-our-future/king-bain-video-says-boston-herald-called-bain-pro/

This is a classic case of attributing a quote to a newspaper that the paper never said. The 28-minute video "When Mitt Romney Came to Town" -- an attack on the Republican presidential candidate’s experiences with the private equity firm Bain Capital -- seeks to paint Romney as a "predatory corporate raider" who "looked for businesses he could pick apart." The video, produced by the pro-Newt Gingrich super PAC Winning Our Future, highlighted four examples, including toy store chain KB Toys, from the more than 100 companies that Bain backed over the years Romney led the private equity firm. About eight minutes into the "documentary," you can hear puppets singing an old jingle ("Hot we got at KB Toys!") along with this narration: "Romney and Bain bought the 80-year-old company in 2000, loaded KB Toys with millions in debt, then used the money to repurchase Bain stock. The debt was too staggering. By 2004, 365 stores had closed." That the chain failed isn't in dispute: KB Toys dissolved in bankruptcy court under different owners in 2008. We’re checking the video’s overall portrayal of the Bain-KB relationship in another item. Here, we’ll check one specific claim made in the video: "Mitt Romney and Bain saw a 900 percent return on their investment" in KB Toys, the video says. "Romney and Bain’s profits at the expense of 15,000 jobs was described by the Boston Herald as ‘disgusting.’" In addition, the on-screen visual emphasizes the point, showing the text, "‘disgusting profits,’ Boston Herald, 11/17/2009." That suggests the comment came from a Herald editorial or columnist. So we looked back at the article the video referenced -- a news story headlined, "KB Toys worker blasts Bain for execs' payout." The story is about the campaign of Stephen Pagliuca for the Democratic nomination to fill the U.S. Senate seat made vacant upon the death of Edward Kennedy. Pagliuca is managing director of Bain Capital as well as co-owner of the Boston Celtics. The story quotes a former KB Toys employee attacking Bain for its role in KB Toys’ demise, which the story says resulted in 450 job losses in the Boston area. Here’s an excerpt: "‘They were supposed to be coming in to create jobs and help the company grow when they took us over. What happened?'’ asked Mark W. Dean, a 45-year-old Pittsfield resident who has been out of a job since KB Toys went out of business earlier this year. "It's just another political promise.' "Pagliuca spokesman Will Keyser said the Celtics co-owner wasn't directly involved in managing the KB Toys takeover, although he did profit from the deal. "‘He has acknowledged over the course of the campaign that businesses he or his company invested in have failed, but the record of successes he's been involved in far outnumber the failures,’'' said Keyser in a statement. ... "Dean, who worked at KB Toys for 22 years, is still outraged by the $121 million payout to execs and investors. "‘That was disgusting. There were a lot of employees who were upset about that,’' Dean said." So what we have is a Boston Herald news story quoting an angry former employee -- not an impartial newspaper expressing outrage in its own voice, which is what the voice-over suggests. Nowhere does the ad note that the sentiments were actually expressed by a worker laid off by the company. Our ruling The story referenced by the video does contain the "disgusting" quote. But in both in the voice-over and the video, the "King of Bain" video suggests that the comment was spoken in the editorial voice of the Boston Herald. It wasn't -- it came from a laidoff worker. We rate the statement Mostly False.

Winning Our Future

2012-01-13T12:21:37

2012-01-12

['Boston_Herald', 'Bain_Capital']

pomt-13715

We have the most productive workers in the world.

mostly true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jul/27/joe-biden/biden-almost-right-us-workers-most-productive/

On the third night of the Democratic convention, Vice President Joe Biden took vigorous exception to the Republican message of a nation teetering on the brink. "Not only do we have the largest economy in the world, we have the strongest economy in the world," Biden said. "We have the most productive workers in the world. And given a fair shot, given a fair chance, Americans have never ever ever let their country down." Does American have the most productive workers? Not quite. We checked the numbers and found that we rank third, not first. Productivity is a measure of how much value comes out of each hour worked. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks the performance of the world’s higher income nations. When the OECD compares the GDP per hour worked across 47 countries (using dollars corrected for inflation and the purchasing power in each nation), it consistently reports that Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than the United States. This table shows the top six countries since 2010. 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Luxembourg 78.4 78.2 76 78.4 79.3 81.2 Norway 77.8 77.2 77.8 78.3 78.9 79.7 United States 61.9 62.1 62.2 62.2 62.4 .. Belgium 61.8 61.6 61.4 61.7 62.2 .. Ireland 58.2 60.7 61 60.2 62 .. Netherlands 59.6 60.1 59.9 60.1 60.6 61.3 For 2014, the most recent year for which we have complete data, America ranks third, as it has since 2010. For each hour worked in Luxembourg, that country gains $79.30. In Norway, the amount is $78.90. In the United States, the value is $62.40. We reached out to Biden’s press office and were told that when he’s made this comparison before, he has referred to other larger economies, which means the United States ranks first. He left out that qualification this time. Our ruling Biden said that America has the most productive workers in the world. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development tracks how much value comes out of each hour worked in the world’s higher income nations. According to its data, Luxembourg and Norway have more productive workers than America. That ranking has been in place since 2010. Third is not first. But to place in the top three out of the world’s 47 most wealthy nations is still an achievement. Biden is wrong on the details, but the general point is correct. We rate this claim Mostly True. https://www.sharethefacts.co/share/5d0250d7-ca8f-4047-a1c8-e49b4fa67a73

Joe Biden

2016-07-27T23:59:17

2016-07-27

['None']

snes-01128

A social media meme cites accurate statistics to dispute the claim that so-called "Dreamers" have had a positive impact on American society.

mostly false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/facts-about-dreamers-meme/

Politics

David Emery

Checking the Facts About ‘Dreamers’

25 January 2018

['United_States']

pomt-11620

Mexico is "now rated the number one most dangerous country in the world."

mostly false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2018/jan/24/donald-trump/mexico-isnt-deadliest-country-world-trump-said/

Defending the wall at the heart of a government shutdown, President Donald Trump pitched a fishy claim about Mexico’s security levels. "We need the Wall for the safety and security of our country," Trump tweeted on Jan. 18, 2018. "We need the Wall to help stop the massive inflow of drugs from Mexico, now rated the number one most dangerous country in the world. If there is no Wall, there is no Deal!" See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com Drug trade and policy experts generally agree a border wall likely would not have the impact Trump envisions, we found in a previous report. This time around, we decided to take a look at Mexican security. Was Mexico just rated the most dangerous country in the world? While there are multiple ways to measure danger, there is no single ranking for the most dangerous country in the world. The White House did not repond to our inquiry on the record. Mexico does rank first or third for the number of journalists killed for doing their jobs. However, it is out-ranked by other countries in other lists, such as countries’ homicides per capita. Deadly for journalists The only way Mexico falls first is if we only consider the International Press Institute’s number of journalists who were killed in 2017. The global journalism network tallied at least 14 journalists killed in Mexico in its December 2017 report. The Committee to Protect Journalists confirmed six cases of murder in retaliation for the journalists’ work, placing Mexico third for killings worldwide and first after conflict zones. The number of journalists killed in Mexico with confirmed motives reached a historical high in 2017, the committee found. Not so much for the broader public Outside of journalism, Mexico scores high on danger levels, but not first. The Institute for Economics and Peace produces an annual Global Peace Index report, which measures the world’s most peaceful countries using 23 qualitative and quantitative measures of safety, security, ongoing domestic and international conflict, and militarization. Read inversely, the countries at the bottom of this list could be considered the "least peaceful." Mexico was ranked 22nd from the bottom of that list. Syria was worst. Frank Zimring, a crime expert at the University of California, Berkeley, said the two most useful measures of danger are the homicide rate of a country and the rate of some index of reported crime. Comparing crime across countries is difficult and discouraged due to disparities in legal definitions, incident reporting and data collection. The main study of intentional homicides is performed by the United Nations’ Office of Drug Control. The figures don’t include war-related killings and deaths from internal conflicts, which are generally far higher than intentional homicides. Mexico was 10th on the list in 2015, and El Salvador was first. There were 16 intentional homicides for every 100,000 people in Mexico, whereas El Salvador had 109 per 100,000 population. (The United States, by the way, was 54th.) "While Mexico has a significant problem of violence, it is manifestly false that Mexico is the most dangerous country in the world," Mexico’s foreign ministry retaliated in a press release about Trump’s tweet. "According to UN figures for 2014 (the most recent international report), Mexico is far from being one of the most violent countries. In Latin America alone, other countries have homicide rates higher than Mexico's (16.4), which is far below several countries in the region." The most recent year, however, did see Mexico’s highest homicide count since the government began counting in 1997: 29,168 homicide cases in 2017, Mexico’s interior ministry told the Associated Press. That places it slightly above the regional average, according to Eric Olson, the deputy director of the Wilson Center’s Latin American program. "To maintain that Mexico is the most violent country in the world would be a very subjective claim, and to say it’s the most homicidal is certifiably wrong," Olson said. Trump tweeted a similar claim in June: "Mexico was just ranked the second deadliest country in the world, after only Syria." See Figure 2 on PolitiFact.com The source of that claim was a report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies that said Mexico’s 2016 intentional homicide total, 23,000, was second only to Syria. After the statistic garnered heavy media attention, a press release revealed a "methodological flaw" in their fatalities calculation, which spokeswoman Anais Auvray said researchers are working to fix. Regardless, the report measured the gross number of homicides, which have little comparative value. For context, in 2015 the United States had half the homicide rate as Mexico, yet recorded 15,696 intentional homicides, to Mexico’s 20,762, according to the United Nations. The report also excludes other violent Latin American countries, like Brazil, which do not fit the institute’s criteria for armed conflict. "The Armed Conflict Database and Survey do not measure homicides on either an absolute or per capita basis," a June 23, 2017, news release said. "We estimate deaths directly related to conflict. We do not provide an assessment of the levels of violence in any country." Our ruling Trump tweeted that Mexico is "now rated the number one most dangerous country in the world." That is the case for journalists, according to two groups that track retaliatory murders. But it is not true for the risk to the broader public, which is not mentioned or clarified in Trump’s Twitter feed. Experts offered homicide measures as the best measure of a country’s security. By that token, Mexico ranked 10th in the United Nations’ homicides measures in 2015. Mexico’s homicide count reached a record peak last year, according to government statistics. While certainly a cause for concern, that’s doesn’t make Mexico the "number one most dangerous country." We rate this statement Mostly False. See Figure 3 on PolitiFact.com

Donald Trump

2018-01-24T11:42:25

2018-01-18

['Mexico']

tron-01549

New Hoverboard Law Takes Effect January 2016

truth! & fiction!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/new-hoverboard-law-takes-effect-january-2016/

government

New Hoverboard Law Takes Effect January 2016

Dec 28, 2015

['None']

pomt-04389

Frank Guinta voted to make middle class taxpayers pay over a $1,000 more a year in taxes.

mostly false

/new-hampshire/statements/2012/oct/18/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democrats-point-votes-om-ryan-budget-evidence-rep-/

Despite his claims, U.S. Rep. Frank Guinta is no friend of the working man or woman, according to the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. And his vote on this year’s House budget proves it, the Democratic group charged in an ad released on New Hampshire airwaves. "Say you're a regular person with a regular job," a narrator says in the ad, "Regular," which launched Monday on WMUR-TV in New Hampshire. "Frank Guinta voted to make you pay over a $1,000 more a year in taxes. "Frank Guinta is looking out for them, not you," the ad concludes. The Guinta campaign quickly disputed the ad, calling it "false" and "misleading," and asking WMUR to remove it from the air. The DCCC stood by its ad, pointing to an ABC News report from August to support the claim. And WMUR said it has no plans to pull the ad. The ABC News story, aired August 14, referenced a report from the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee that suggested the House Republicans’ 2013 budget proposal would raise taxes on middle class families. The Joint Committee report, prepared by the staff of the committee chairman, U.S. Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), concludes the House budget proposal, headed by Republican Vice-Presidential nominee Paul Ryan, would raise taxes by $1,358 on households with an income between $50,000-$100,000. Guinta voted March 29 in favor of Ryan’s budget proposal, which passed the House but stalled in the Senate. So the Joint Committee’s numbers match the DCCC claim. But, according to some analysts, the committee used some funny math to reach its conclusions. As noted in past PolitiFact reports, the Casey report assumes, without knowing, House Republicans would eliminate deductions on state and local taxes, mortgage interest and charitable contributions, among others. In the budget, Ryan, like his presidential running mate, included few specifics regarding tax deductions and other expenditures. But, keeping the budget revenue neutral, as Ryan has stressed, would require the elimination of these and other deductions, according to Joint Committee economists. "The remaining large tax expenditures … all deliver significant benefits to the middle class, and removing these tax expenditures would hit middle-income taxpayers hard," they wrote in the report. Still, to make those assumptions was too big a leap for other tax analysts. The business-backed Tax Foundation, which did not conduct its own review of the Ryan budget, had no competing figures to offer. But, foundation economists still offered a critical review of the Joint Committee report. "(The analysis) is quite speculative in that it assumes certain things about the plan that were not specified publicly," William McBride, the foundation’s chief economist, wrote in an email to PolitiFact New Hampshire. "It also assumes no economic growth." In its analysis, the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, did not assume the elimination of any deductions or expenditures. The review, published in March, concluded that middle class families, earning between $50,000-$75,000 a year, would see a $975 tax cut under Ryan’s plan, while families earning $75,000-100,000 would average a decrease of$1,692. But, unlike the Joint Committee report, the center review wasn’t intended to project the tax impacts of the budget proposal, according to Joseph Rosenberg, a research associate for the center. Rather, it looked to provide a snapshot of the spending plan as it was presented, he said. "The details matter tremendously," Rosenberg said. "Which tax expenditures you target, or which preferences you target makes all the difference. ... It’s hard to know (what the impacts will be) without that level of detail." Our ruling: Frank Guinta, who is running against Democrat Carol Shea-Porter in New Hampshire's First Congressional District, voted in favor of the House Republicans’ 2013 budget. That much is clear. But, whether the spending proposal would have increased taxes on middle class families remains in question. The study by the Congressional Joint Economic Committee, which is chaired by a Democrat, suggests the budget plan would have increased taxes by $1,358 -- more than the $1,000 referenced in the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ad. But, it assumes the budget would eliminate a host of deductions and expenditures -- assumptions that are too big a stretch for other tax analysts. Had it passed, the House budget may have increased middle class taxes as the ad suggests. But, given the lack of specifics, there isn’t enough evidence to know for sure, as the DCCC claims to do. We rate the claim Mostly False.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

2012-10-18T16:11:45

2012-10-15

['Frank_Guinta']

pomt-14900

Texas legislation "would allow… teachers to kill their students if they felt it was needed."

half-true

/texas/statements/2015/nov/06/greenville-gazette/website-says-texas-legislation-allows-teachers-kil/

A reader asked us to look into an article headlined: "This new bill would allow Texas teachers to kill their students if they felt it was needed." Good thing Texas lawmakers are no longer in session, eh? The article, posted in February 2015 on a website called the Greenville Gazette, said the Teacher’s Protection Act "would allow teachers to use deadly force on school property, a school bus, or at an event sponsored by a school either in self-defense or defense of students at the school." Use of force in the classroom has made headlines. On Oct. 28, 2015, most recently, a school resource officer in South Carolina was fired after a video surfaced of him throwing a female high school student on the ground. So, was there a proposed act permitting Texas teachers to kill their students if necessary? The Teacher’s Protection Act No one at the Gazette responded to us. But a web search led us to a proposed Teacher’s Protection Act. State Rep. Dan Flynn, R-Van, filed House Bill 868 on Jan. 22, 2015 but it didn’t advance into law or draw a hearing; the last action shown in legislative records was its referral to the House Public Education Committee on March 4, 2015. The bill says: "An educator is justified in using force or deadly force on school property, on a school bus, or at a school-sponsored event in defense of the educator’s person or in defense of students of the school that employs the educator if (he or she) reasonably believes" themselves to be "justified under" sections 9.31, 9.32, 9.33 and 9.43 of the Texas Penal Code. Those sections establish that a person can use force or deadly force against another in self defense or in defense of property if the person "reasonably believes" it to be "immediately necessary." Under the legislation, a teacher would be shielded from from criminal and civil charges "for injury or death that results from the educator’s use of force or deadly force." While the measure didn’t specify a teacher could kill a student, we asked Flynn if it left that option open. By phone, Flynn said that was not his intent. "That’s a ridiculous statement," he said. "It totally mischaracterizes the bill." Flynn said the proposal’s purpose was to protect any teacher from facing criminal or civil charges for defending himself or herself against a student assault. "You hear all the time," Flynn said, "that teachers are getting broken noses, being slapped, being pushed around, being taken to the floor by overzealous students who know that they can do it without fear of reprisal." He did not provide specific examples. Asked about the legislation permitting a teacher to use "deadly force," Flynn said he used the same language that otherwise broadly appears in existing law, perhaps referring to the penal code provisions permitting a person to use force or deadly force against another in self defense or in defense of property if the person "reasonably believes" it to be "immediately necessary." Call in the lawyers Next, we asked lawyers by phone to appraise the proposal: Would it allow Texas teachers to kill their students if they felt it was necessary? All four said Flynn’s proposal would allow a teacher to kill a student, but only if the action was justified under the existing penal code conditions—a limit stressed by Shannon Edmonds of the Texas District and County Attorneys Association and Sam Bassett, president of the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyers Association. Edmonds and Bassett also said teachers may currently use deadly force in keeping with the penal code, though attorney Paul Tapp of the Association of Texas Professional Educators suggested Texas teachers cannot yet typically use deadly force. Tapp pointed us to section 9.62 of Texas Penal Code, which says teachers can use "force, but not deadly force" to "maintain discipline in a group." After surveying the lawyers, we followed up with Flynn, who maintained that his proposal was not redundant and that teachers are currently not protected from prosecution. He cited "bad press and a lack of understanding about what we’re trying to accomplish" as reasons for the bill not advancing and he said he plans to offer a version of the measure afresh in the 2017 legislative session. Our ruling The website declared: "This new bill would allow Texas teachers to kill their students if they felt it was needed." This statement is partially accurate in that a bill was introduced in 2015 to give teachers greater legal protection if deadly force were employed against a student. But saying that it would "allow Texas teachers to kill their students if they felt it was needed" is a stretch that suggests that the bill would allow teachers to just start firing away. We rate this claim, which lacks this context, 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.

Greenville Gazette

2015-11-06T10:16:50

2015-02-01

['None']

hoer-00279

'Huge Plane Crashes Into Bridge' Survey

facebook scams

https://www.hoax-slayer.com/plane-crash-bridge-survey-scam.shtml

Brett M. Christensen

'Huge Plane Crashes Into Bridge' Survey Scam

January 21, 2014

['None']

pomt-10515

The board of a nonprofit organization on which Obama served as a paid director ... granted funding to a controversial Arab group.

mostly false

/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/mar/14/tennessee-republican-party/group-not-controversial/

A news release from the Tennessee Republican Party titled "Anti-Semites for Obama" seeks to cast doubt on Sen. Barack Obama's public pronouncements of support for Israel, in part, by noting Obama's role with the Woods Fund, a Chicago grantmaking foundation whose goal is to "increase opportunities for disadvantaged people." The release says: "The board of a nonprofit organization on which Obama served as a paid director ... granted funding to a controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a 'catastrophe.' " Deborah Harrington, president of the Woods Fund, said Obama was, in fact, a director from 1994 through 2001, when the board approved a $40,000 grant to the Arab American Action Network for "community organizing." The source for the allegations can be traced to a Feb. 24, 2008, article written by Aaron Klein for WorldNetDaily, an Internet publication. The story takes issue with the founder of AAAN, Rashid Khalidi, a Columbia University professor who is "a harsh critic of Israel and has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror." The article also notes that the AAAN co-sponsored an art exhibit that featured "works related to what some Palestinians call the 'Nakba' or 'catastrophe' of Israel's founding in 1948" (although the exhibit came years after Obama left the Woods Fund board). Other blogs note that in a July 2006 interview, AAAN's executive director, Hatem Abudayyeh, referred to the "Israeli government and its military killing machine." Abudayyeh has been bombarded with media calls from the likes of Time and Newsweek. In an interview with PolitiFact, he dismissed the WorldNet article and others that have parroted it as misguided attempts by "marginal right wing, anti-Muslim" Internet voices to try to discredit Obama. The AAAN has no foreign policy agenda, Abudayyeh said. It is a nonprofit "community-based organization working to improve the social, economic, and political conditions of Arab immigrants and Arab-Americans in the Chicago metropolitan area." The AAAN provides Chicago-based adult education, social services, youth development programs, domestic violence prevention and "community empowerment" through community organizing, activism and leadership development, Abudayyeh said. There are hundreds of organizations in the Chicago area that serve many different communities, he said, and "individuals within those organizations have different political viewpoints on domestic and foreign policy." But those viewpoints have no bearing on the services provided by the organization, he said. Louise Cainkar, an associate professor of sociology at Marquette University, formerly served on the AAAN board and specifically remembers the 2001 grant from the Woods Fund. "It was after the Sept. 11 attacks," said Cainkar. "Many Arab-Americans were being victimized by hate crimes. It was a hostile environment. That was an essential grant to cope with what community members were facing." Money was used to educate Arab-Americans about their civil rights, how to report hate crimes to law enforcement and to organize the community. Chicago has the country's largest Palestinian-American community, said Cainkar, who is writing a book about the Arab-American experience after 9/11. Many of them are critical of Israeli government policies, she said. "Does the organization takes sides? No," she said. "Do individuals? I'm sure they do. "AAAN is a community organization and they are careful about not getting involved in anything with foreign policy." Harrington, president of the Woods Fund, called it "pretty ridiculous" to suggest the AAAN promotes anti-Israeli ideas. The Woods Fund's goal is "to increase opportunities for less advantaged people and communities in the metropolitan area, including the opportunity to shape decisions affecting them." The foundation works with a diverse array of nonprofits "engaging people in civic life, addressing the causes of poverty and other challenges facing the region, promoting more effective public policies, reducing racism and other barriers to equal opportunity, and building a sense of community and common ground." Among those who have gotten grants in recent years: Protestants for the Common Good, the Black Ensemble Theater Group, the Japanese American Service Committee and the International Latino Cultural Center of Chicago. "It just seems like, why this one?'' Harrington said of singling out the grant to the AAAN. "It's a witch hunt." So what do we have? Seven years ago, Obama was a director of the Woods Fund when the board approved a grant to the AAAN. And some of the leaders of AAAN have made statements that could be interpreted as anti-Israel. The release implies that Obama's public pro-Israel stance should be questioned based on the opinions of leaders from the AAAN. But there's no evidence the AAAN used any of the Woods Fund money to promote an anti-Israel foreign policy agenda. In fact, the AAAN's focus is on local initiatives, and has no foreign policy. We rate the claim Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.

Tennessee Republican Party

2008-03-14T00:00:00

2008-02-25

['Barack_Obama']

pomt-01189

Says Barack Obama has "the worst record of any president when it comes to putting America deeper in debt."

half-true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/dec/04/reince-priebus/rnc-chair-reince-priebus-says-barack-obama-has-wor/

Public concern about America’s debt load tends to wax and wane, but it never really goes away. Recently, Reince Priebus, the chairman of the Republican National Committee, brought up the national debt again, right around the time the broadest measure of national debt broke through the $18 trillion barrier for the first time. On Dec. 2, 2014, Priebus said that President Barack Obama has "the worst record of any president when it comes to putting America deeper in debt," according to an account in The Hill newspaper. He went on to call the growth in debt "immoral" and said voters had "tired of Democrats’ free-spending ways." We wondered how accurate it was for Priebus to describe Obama as having "the worst record of any president when it comes to putting America deeper in debt." (While the Obama administration has touted its success in helping shrink the annual federal deficit, Priebus was clearly referencing debt, not the deficit, even though the two are obviously related.) When we checked with the RNC, spokeswoman Kirsten Kukowski said the gross federal debt -- the amount of debt held by the public plus the amount of debt held by government entities -- had risen from $10.6 trillion to about $18 trillion during Obama’s time in office, making it the largest increase in raw dollars during any presidency. Meanwhile, she added, the subset of debt that’s held by the public has more than doubled under Obama. When we looked into these numbers, they checked out. However, given the snowballing effect of inflation and debt accumulation, it’s not surprising that whoever the most recent president is -- Republican or Democrat -- would experience the biggest increases in raw dollars of debt. So we looked at two other measurements that give a better sense of context for how much the debt climbed under Obama. We used the Treasury Department’s daily database of federal debt, called Debt to the Penny, for data going back to 1993. For earlier presidencies, we used historical data from the Office of Management and Budget. We decided to use the broader measure of gross debt rather than the narrower measure of public debt -- even though both are valid measures of debt -- because for the past three presidents, data on gross debt is more consistently accessible. Meanwhile, to limit the impact of irregular presidential tenures, we looked at nine presidential periods of either four or eight years each: Eisenhower; Kennedy and Johnson combined; Nixon and Ford combined; Carter; Reagan; George H.W. Bush; Clinton; George W. Bush; and Obama. (We didn't go further back than Eisenhower because the high debt levels in the World War II era were a historical anomaly.) Debt as a share of GDP The first measure we looked at was growth in debt as a percentage of gross domestic product, or GDP. Experts say this is an important yardstick because it gives a sense of how burdensome the debt is on the economy. Smaller economies can sustain smaller debt loads; bigger ones can tolerate bigger debt loads. Using this measure, Priebus has a point. The Obama years rank first -- that is to say, worst -- among the nine presidential tenures when measured by the increase in debt as a share of GDP. At the end of fiscal year 2008, around the time Obama took office, gross federal debt accounted for 67.7 percent of GDP. The estimate for fiscal year 2014 is 103.2 percent. That’s a 35.5 percentage-point increase over six years -- far higher than any prior president we looked at, even those who served for a full eight years. (The end of fiscal 2008 was a few months before Obama took office -- a fact that has caused us headaches in the past -- but in this case, the gap is so wide that the discrepancy doesn’t make a significant difference.) So big is the gap between Obama and the other presidents, in fact, that only three of the other eight tenures we studied saw any increase at all in debt as a share of GDP. Debt as a share of GDP went up by 18 percentage points under Reagan, by 12.3 points under George W. Bush, and by 11.7 percentage points under George H.W. Bush. By contrast, every other president or combined presidential tenure saw a decline in the share of debt within GDP. Under Carter it went down by 2.6 points, under Nixon and Ford it fell by 5.9 points, under Clinton it fell by 6.8 points, under Kennedy and Johnson it was down by 13.3 points, and under Eisenhower it fell by 18.2 percentage points. Percentage increase in debt from inauguration to end of tenure However -- if you use a second measure, the numbers are more favorable toward Obama. We looked at how much the gross debt grew from day one of the presidency to the end of that presidency, then adjusted for the length of time in office. On this list, the debt under Obama grew at the third-fastest pace -- and, awkwardly for Priebus, the two presidents under whom debt grew faster were both Republicans. Reagan saw the biggest percentage increase in debt on his watch, at about 23 percent per year, followed by George H.W. Bush at about 13 percent per year and Obama at 11.5 percent per year. Those who saw slower debt growth than Obama were Carter (an increase of 11 percent a year), George W. Bush (10.8 percent a year), Nixon and Ford (8.8 percent a year), Clinton (4.6 percent per year), Kennedy and Johnson (3.3 percent per year), and Eisenhower (1.5 percent per year). So, whether Obama ranks as "the worst" at debt accumulation depends on how you measure it. Who gets the blame? Another important factor to consider: How much is Obama responsible for this increase in debt? Presidents do have an impact on the debt accrued during their tenure, but that impact is not all-encompassing. Presidents propose budgets and sign off, along with Congress, on final spending and revenue numbers. Programs they initiate cost money and, unless enough other spending is cut to produce a surplus, debt inevitably goes up. In addition, debt tends to rise particularly quickly during recessions -- and Obama came into office with a doozy of a recession under way. In the debt per GDP measure, Obama was hit coming and going, since the numerator (debt) rose even as the denominator (GDP) fell during the recession. "Certainly the Great Recession had a big impact" on debt accumulation under Obama, said Steve Ellis, vice president of Taxpayers for Common Sense. The recession, he said, meant both higher spending (on programs to aid the newly jobless and financially struggling) but also a loss in tax revenue (as once-employed Americans stopped earning wages they would have to pay taxes on). In addition, the Baby Boomer generation retired in increasing numbers under Obama, meaning both higher spending and fewer tax revenues. "So it’s a mixed bag, and all presidents are a bit trapped by their time," Ellis said. "Did Reagan-Bush policies help create the surpluses experienced under Clinton? Republicans say so. Did the George W. Bush policies create the economic downturn that sent the debt soaring under Obama? Democrats say yes. Ultimately, all presidents are impacted by their predecessors’ policies and can be roiled by external forces." This suggests that Obama bears some responsibility for the rise in debt, but hardly all. Our ruling Priebus said Obama has "the worst record of any president when it comes to putting America deeper in debt." On Obama’s watch, debt as a share of GDP rose far faster than it did during any prior presidency. But if you look at the current amount of debt compared to where he started, the rise was not as fast as it was under Reagan and the elder Bush, two Republican predecessors. And while presidents bear some responsibility for debt accumulation, much of the equation -- economic and demographic changes and the consequences of prior president’s actions, in particular -- is out of their control. The statement is partially accurate but leaves out important details, so we rate it Half True.

Reince Priebus

2014-12-04T17:00:00

2014-12-02

['United_States']

goop-01271

Taylor Swift, Joe Alwyn Shopping For Engagement Ring?

0

https://www.gossipcop.com/taylor-swift-joe-alwyn-engagement-ring-shopping/

Shari Weiss

Taylor Swift, Joe Alwyn Shopping For Engagement Ring?

11:45 am, April 1, 2018

['None']

vogo-00576

Statement: “Class sizes are exploding. They’re looking at 30 kids per teacher ratio in kindergarten through third grade next year,” San Diego Unified school board candidate Kevin Beiser said at a voiceofsandiego.org school board candidates forum May 20.

determination: barely true

https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/fact/fact-check-are-class-sizes-going-to-explode/

Analysis: Keeping class sizes small is a centerpiece of Beiser’s campaign for school board. During our debate, Beiser said he’d back a parcel tax to avert a coming explosion in class sizes.

Fact Check: Are Class Sizes Going to Explode?

May 27, 2010

['None']

tron-01475

Getting to Know the Real John McCain by Burma Davis Posey

commentary!

https://www.truthorfiction.com/getting-know-real-john-mccain-burma-davis-posey/

government

['2008 election', 'congress', 'john mccain', 'obamacare']

Getting to Know the Real John McCain by Burma Davis Posey

Aug 10, 2017

['None']

snes-06326

Photographs show a train that set a wooden bridge on fire.

true

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/a-bridge-too-far/

Fauxtography

David Mikkelson

Train Sets Bridge on Fire

6 August 2009

['None']

pomt-12627

Ken Starr’s plane just disappeared on his way to D.C. to testify against Hillary (Clinton).

pants on fire!

/punditfact/statements/2017/mar/31/blog-posting/fake-news-post-wrongly-says-ken-starr-died-plane-c/

A fake news story claimed that the lawyer who investigated former President Bill Clinton prior to his impeachment died in a plane crash while on his way to give testimony about former Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton. "Ken Starr’s plane just disappeared on his way to D.C. to testify against Hillary," read the headline on a March 24, 2017, post on ConservativeFlashNews.com. The post was flagged by Facebook users as potentially being fabricated, as part of the social media website’s efforts to curtail fake news. While this post appears on several other websites, ConservativeFlashNews.com indicates that they "cannot make any warranties about the completeness, reliability and accuracy of this information." There is no immediately apparent way to contact the site. The story, which is fake, said Starr was flying to Washington when his plane crashed in Wilkershire, Md. — a town that, as far as we can tell, does not exist. The post said five people were killed in the crash. The post also said that Starr was going to testify before "special investigative committee that has recently found itself investigating crimes from the 1990s," led by U.S. Rep. Trey Gowdy, R-S.C. There is no such committee, but Gowdy’s name likely was invoked because he was chairman of the House Select Committee on Benghazi. That committee submitted its final report in July 2016. Starr’s investigation into the Clintons, starting with former deputy White House counsel Vince Foster’s death and the Whitewater land deal, eventually unearthed details of Bill Clinton allegedly lying in a deposition about an affair with intern Monica Lewinsky. The allegations in the Starr Report led to Bill Clinton’s 1998 impeachment. More recently, Starr served as president and chancellor of Baylor University, but left amid accusations that he mishandled a sexual assault scandal to protect players on the school’s football team. As for the story that he died, its origins have roots in a well-known source of fabricated news. ConservativeFlashNews.com copied the story that appeared on the same date on TheLastLineOfDefense.org. The post featured a photograph of a real fatal plane crash during a 2015 air show in England. The site has been the source of several fake news stories that we’ve previously checked. As is the case here, TheLastLineOfDefense.org’s posts end up being passed around on multiple websites, often without attribution about its origin. TheLastLineOfDefense.org doesn’t indicate that this or any other story is fake, but its About Us link notes that "all articles should be considered satirical and any and all quotes attributed to actual people complete and total baloney." There have been no real reports that Starr has died, and the story came from a known purveyor of contrived news stories. We rate this statement Pants On Fire! See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com

Bloggers

2017-03-31T10:25:34

2017-03-24

['Washington,_D.C.', 'Bill_Clinton', 'Hillary_Rodham_Clinton', 'Ken_Starr']

pomt-12505

In the federal government, "there’s $16 billion in duplicate programs" that can be cut.

mostly true

/georgia/statements/2017/apr/27/jon-ossoff/checking-jon-ossoff-16-billion-government-waste/

Jon Ossoff, the Democratic candidate making a strong run in a historically Republican House district, recently aired an ad in which he sought to burnish his credentials as an opponent of unnecessary government spending. Speaking directly to the camera, Ossoff, a former congressional aide, said in part, "Both parties in Washington waste too much of your money. When I worked there I helped expose waste and abuse by government contractors. We need stricter oversight and tougher penalties. They need to be held accountable. And there’s $16 billion in duplicate programs. That can be cut." We wondered where that $16 billion figure came from, so we did some due diligence. When we contacted the Ossoff campaign, they sent us to a report published every year since 2011 by the Government Accountability Office, the respected, nonpartisan, investigative arm of Congress. The report, which is mandated by law, is designed to point out programs, offices and practices in government that could be eliminated or changed because they duplicate other government functions or fail to provide value for the taxpayer. Ossoff’s campaign said the $16 billion figure came from several line items in the GAO report that the candidate has reviewed and believes can be eliminated in short order and without significant harm. Here’s a list. (For readers who want the full, in-the-weeds description of these programs, you can refer to the GAO report.) • Consolidate federal data centers: Save $5.4 billion. • Use "strategic sourcing" at the Defense Department: Save $4 billion. • Expand joint basing at the Defense Department: Save $2.3 billion. • Improve "demonstrative spending" at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Save at least $2 billion. • Improve management of oil and gas resources on federal lands: Save $1.7 billion. • Consolidate mobile communications: Save $388 million. • Improve oversight of state spending under the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: Save at least $200 million. These seven items add up to almost exactly $16 billion. That said, it’s worth noting that only some, not all, are duplicative in the strictest sense; with some of these recommendations, the GAO is calling for improved oversight or management. Also, the $16 billion figure doesn’t include all recommendations in the GAO report -- or even all of those that stem specifically from programs or efforts that GAO deemed duplicative. We found at least two recommendations from the report that suggested savings from duplicative programs: • Prevent individuals from collecting both full disability insurance benefits and unemployment insurance benefits that cover the same period: Save $1.9 billion from 2016 to 2025. • Terminate the U.S. Family Health Plan and have other DOD health care contractors take over its duties: Save $189 million over fiscal years 2017 to 2022. Meanwhile, the report includes a wide range of other recommendations that Ossoff has not explicitly said he supports. (We excluded recommendations where GAO was unable to provide a specific dollar figure.) They include: • Conduct timely children’s disability reviews to ensure that only eligible children receive Supplemental Security Income benefits: Save $3.1 billion over five years • Obtain better data to better enforce offsets and ensure benefit fairness in Social Security. Save $2.4 billion to $7.9 billion over 10 years. • Limit the subsidy for crop insurance premiums for individual farmers: Save $2 billion annually • Permanently rescind the U.S. Enrichment Corp. Fund: Save $1.6 billion • Market the Energy Department’s excess uranium: Secure $1 billion in additional revenue. • Modify how Medicare pays certain cancer hospitals: Save $500 million annually. • Broaden the Internal Revenue Service’s authority to correct simple tax return errors in order to avoid audits: Secure $274 million in additional revenue over fiscal years 2018 to 2026. • Achieve greater cost efficiencies with checked baggage inspection: Save $234 million in 2015 to 2027. • Adjust the air passenger immigration inspection user fee to fully recover the cost of inspection activities: Save almost $175 million. So when Ossoff says "there’s $16 billion in duplicate programs" that can be cut, he’s actually undercounting. GAO found at least $13 billion in additional specified savings that Ossoff did not allude to in the ad, plus even more when savings of unspecified amounts are included. (The campaign told PolitiFact that there "a lot of additional areas for cutting wasteful government spending that he thinks are worth examining as well.") A final note: $16 billion is real money, but it’s still a fairly small fraction of overall federal spending. Total federal spending is about $4 trillion for fiscal year 2017, and even if you exclude mandatory spending on such programs as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and interest on the accumulated debt, the government still spends more than $1 trillion a year on "discretionary" programs. Our ruling Ossoff said that in the federal government, "there’s $16 billion in duplicate programs" that can be cut. There are indeed $16 billion in cuts recommended by a credible study published by a nonpartisan arm of Congress, though not all are examples of duplication. The actual universe of cuts offered by GAO is even higher -- somewhere north of an additional $13 billion. The statement is accurate but needs clarification, so we rate it Mostly True. See Figure 1 on PolitiFact.com

Jon Ossoff

2017-04-27T10:00:00

2017-03-30

['None']

pomt-08818

Ken Mercer "wants Sean Hannity and James Dobson included in social studies texts."

mostly false

/texas/statements/2010/aug/14/rebecca-bell-metereau/rebecca-bell-metereau-says-ken-mercer-wants-sean-h/

Democrat Rebecca Bell-Metereau, trying to unseat Republican Ken Mercer on the State Board of Education, calls him "an extreme partisan with a set agenda" in a campaign flier that we recently snagged from a pile laid out in the Texas AFL-CIO building in Austin. Among Bell-Metereau's statements: Mercer "wants Sean Hannity and James Dobson included in social studies texts." We wondered whether Mercer was really in favor of Texas schoolchildren learning about a conservative political commentator -- Hannity -- and the founder of the evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family -- Dobson. We've previously checked four claims related to the board's rewriting of the state's social studies curriculum standards this year, including one by Bill White, the Democratic gubernatorial nominee and another by Kathy Miller of the Texas Freedom Network, which bills itself as a watchdog group that monitors "far-right issues, organizations, money and leaders" and has been critical of some changes the board made this year to the standards. Accusations that a seven-member conservative bloc on the 15-member board is infusing the process with politics has thrust the body into the national spotlight. Conservative stalwart Mercer, a San Antonio businessman initially elected to the board in 2006, waxed a well-funded challenger in March's GOP primary. Mercer's district, No. 5, includes Travis County south of the Colorado River, northern Bexar County and parts or all of 10 other counties. For this article, we asked Bell-Metereau, a professor at Texas State University, how she concluded that Mercer wants Hannity & Dobson in Texas textbooks. Her consultant, Harold Cook, pointed us to an August 2009 San Antonio Express-News news article about the social studies curriculum standards stating that Mercer "would add James Dobson's Focus on the Family, conservative talk-show host Sean Hannity and former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee to the list of conservatives" that students could study in a high school U.S. history course. The article starts by saying that under the first draft of the standards, high school students would learn about "such significant individuals and milestones of conservative politics as Newt Gingrich and the rise of the Moral Majority — but nothing about liberals." It notes too that the standards are the basis of public school textbooks; that's in keeping with state law. The first draft of the U.S. history standards, dated July 31, 2009, said students would be expected to "identify significant conservative advocacy organizations and individuals, such as Newt Gingrich, Phyllis Schlafly, and the Moral Majority" as part of learning about "the circumstances of the U.S. as it emerges into the 21st century." According to the Express-News story, that's the list Mercer was referring to when he mentioned Hannity and Dobson. The story also quotes Mercer saying students should "study both sides." At "the end of the day," Mercer is quoted saying, "we will want the young students to be able to identify what's conservative, what's their advocacy and who are the conservative groups, individuals and leaders. And what is liberal in contrast." According to the story, Mercer suggested adding as examples of liberals the National Education Association, MoveOn.org, Planned Parenthood and the Texas Freedom Network. When we asked Mercer about his position on putting Hannity and Dobson in textbooks, he said he offered those examples of whom to include in response to the reporter's asking about adding liberal groups to the standards then being drafted. He said the groups and people in the standards such as the Moral Majority were examples of past conservative movements so his point was that if contemporary liberal groups were added to the curriculum, some of their conservative counterparts such as Huckabee and Hannity should be added as well. The Moral Majority, an evangelical Christian organization founded by the late Jerry Falwell, was a powerful political player during the 1980s. The board adopted a final version of the standards this May after approving revisions in January, March and May. We hunted for signs of Mercer advocating for Dobson and Hannity to be added to the standards during board deliberations. Our finding: When the time came to offer amendments to the standards, Mercer didn't propose adding Hannity or Dobson, although he proposed at least 15 amendments, including to put Texas Supreme Court Chief Justice Wallace Jefferson on a list of people whom fourth-grade students could learn are examples of "important individuals who modeled active participation in the democratic process." He also proposed changing "growth of the slave trade" to "Atlantic Triangular trade" in an objective for eighth-grade social studies students learning "why various sections of the United States developed different patterns of economic activity." The former survived the amendment process and is in the final version of the standards; the latter did not. Dan Quinn, a Texas Freedom Network spokesman, and Debbie Ratcliffe, the education agency's communications director, said they did not recall any board attempts to add Hannity or Dobson to the standards. And we didn't find mention of them in the adopted versions. From another vantage point, a note in the first draft stated that several members of the panel of educators and others who wrote it were in favor of adding a requirement that students learn about liberal groups. In the end, that didn't happen, though a specific mention of conservative groups survived the amendment process. The final version of the standards says high-school U.S. history students are expected to "describe the causes, key organizations, and individuals of the conservative resurgence of the 1980s and 1990s, including Phyllis Schlafly, the Contract with America, the Heritage Foundation, the Moral Majority, and the National Rifle Association" as part of learning about "the impact of political, economic, and social factors in the U.S. role in the world from the 1970s through 1990." The word "liberal" doesn't appear in the high school standards. We asked Mercer why a mandate to study liberal groups didn't become a part of the standards. He said a separate requirement wasn't needed because liberal groups were already well represented. As to Bell-Metereau's statement, she's correct that Mercer spoke about adding Hannity and Dobson to the state's social studies curriculum standards -- although Mercer says the comment was intended to make a point about preserving ideological balance. Sorting who provoked what in that exchange is beyond us; that's between Mercer and the reporter. And although judging someone's wants is difficult, we find it significant and persuasive that neither Mercer nor other board members made a motion to include Dobson and Hannity in the standards, meaning there's been no push thus far to include them in textbooks. That earns Bell-Metereau a rating of Barely True. Editor's note: This statement was rated Barely True when it was published. On July 27, 2011, we changed the name for the rating to Mostly False.

Rebecca Bell-Metereau

2010-08-14T06:00:00

2010-08-09

['James_Dobson']

pomt-05039

Says the federal government is spending $765,828 to subsidize "pancakes for yuppies" in Washington.

half-true

/texas/statements/2012/jul/11/roger-williams/roger-williams-says-765828-federal-money-spent-sub/

Roger Williams, facing a July 31, 2012, runoff against Wes Riddle for the Republican nomination in the state’s 25th Congressional District, vows in a mailer to voters that he’d "just say no" to wasteful spending. His mailer lists as objectionable expenditures half a dozen items including the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus package sought by President Barack Obama in 2009. As we’ve written before, various experts credit the stimulus with protecting or creating jobs. A reader asked, though, if other items on Williams’ list hold up such as purported spending on a remake of "Sesame Street" in Pakistan; a New York video game preservation center; an art exhibition in Italy; a documentary on how rock music fed the collapse of the Soviet Union; and a study of how college students use mobile devices for social networking. For this article, we’re chomping solely on the mailer’s tastiest claim -- $765,828 in federal spending to "subsidize ‘pancakes for yuppies’ in the nation’s capital." A caveat: We’re not going to judge whether the proclaimed expenditure is wasteful. That’s Williams’ opinion. Still: Pancakes for yuppies, supported by Uncle Sam? We'll accept that Washington has its share of yuppies; Merriam-Webster defines a yuppie as a "young college-educated adult who is employed in a well-paying profession and who lives and works in or near a large city." Williams’ mailer offers as its basis a Dec. 20, 2011 online announcement by U.S. Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., of his "Wastebook 2011" report. The report includes a short chapter stating that the hundreds of thousands of federal dollars were provided to help build an International House of Pancakes restaurant in the Columbia Heights section of Washington, breaking down to $500,000 "as an equity injection in DC Pancakes LLC for a 19 percent ownership interest" in the project with remaining funds going to "training costs for new employees, and other consultants." Coburn’s report says Columbia Heights, which is north and west of the Capitol, "has become a local shopping hot spot for some and ― one of Washington‘s more desirable neighborhoods. Other businesses in the area include Target, Bed Bath and Beyond, Best Buy, and Starbucks." Coburn says in his footnotes that he drew on a Nov. 24, 2010, commentary in the conservative Washington Examiner and research by the non-partisan Congressional Research Service, which apparently confirmed the grant amounts and purposes. In the Examiner article, writer David Freddoso quotes Butch Hopkins, who was then CEO of the Anacostia Economic Development Corp., as saying that his organization had applied for and received the grant from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in 2009 to invest in the restaurant in exchange for a minority equity stake. Freddoso questions the benefit to taxpayers of subsidizing the restaurant’s creation in a neighborhood, he writes, that was already a popular yuppie shopping, dining and drinking locale. It quotes Acting HHS Assistant Secretary David Hansell, on hand at the IHOP’s opening, as saying that a lot of folks came out looking for jobs there. We sought to confirm the grant and then to gauge if it’s reasonable to characterize the restaurant as catering to yuppies. The economic development corporation, founded in 1969, says it has developed single and multi-family housing, neighborhood retail and office projects and a shopping center to serve residents living in Washington east of the Anacostia River. On a web page, the corporation says it teamed with an investment company to open the IHOP restaurant, drawing on support from HHS’s Office of Community Services. "This venture will employ over 150 DC residents," the web entry says, "the majority of which are from AEDC’s primary target area in Ward 8," which is mostly in southeast Washington. By email, HHS spokesman Kenneth Wolfe told us the agency gave a $765,828 Community Economic Development grant to the economic development corporation, which proposed to spend $500,000 from the grant to make a 30 percent equity ownership investment in the Jackson Investment Company to build and open an IHOP in Columbia Heights, creating 70 full-time jobs for low-income individuals otherwise eligible for Temporary Aid to Needy Families. A summary Wolfe provided says the grant would leverage about $2 million in other funds, about which he did not elaborate. We weren’t sure how to determine whether the IHOP caters to yuppies. Generally, according to news accounts, Columbia Heights appears to be gaining retail momentum after decades of disuse in the wake of riots and fires that broke out after the April 1968 assassination of the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. A Jan. 9, 2005, news article in the Washington Post, described the local residents as diverse, singling out mostly poor immigrant and African American teenagers. A Nov. 21, 2010, Post news article on the initial onslaught of applicants to work at the IHOP, on Irving Street near 14th Street NW, describes it as located in "fast-gentrifying Columbia Heights -- home to Target, Best Buy and a gastropub featuring $7 pints of British draft beer." A Dec. 21, 2011, Huffington Post story about Coburn’s criticism of the federal grant says the IHOP is in a "massive Columbia Heights shopping center, part of a major mixed-use redevelopment of a once-vibrant commercial corridor that had been fairly barren even years after a Green Line Metrorail station opened." By telephone, IHOP corporate spokeswoman Becky Madeira said the neighborhood is so diverse, it would be a mischaracterization to say the restaurant caters to yuppies. "There is a diversity of ages and a broad band of ethnicities" in the area, Madeira said. In a telephone interview, Tyoka Jackson, the local franchisee, told us the restaurant employs 100 workers: "We took people who were on welfare, who were unemployed, we’re talking ex-offenders, military, single mothers and fathers, and they have jobs now. To me, as a taxpayer, that is money well spent." Jackson also said his customers are a diverse mix. "I would never characterize it as yuppie," Jackson said, adding that if Williams is in Washington, he’s welcome to see for himself. "If he wins, I would suggest he come in and have a stack of pancakes and take a look at who is sitting around him... not only who is sitting around him, but who is serving him," Jackson said. Finally, J.B. Wogan of PolitiFact in Washington scouted the restaurant at about 9 a.m. on a weekday. Wogan reported back that the surroundings have tell-tale signs of "yuppy-ism": a bike rack out front, a tea shop across the street, a Bed, Bath and Beyond next door, two Starbucks within short walks, a Vitamin Shoppe and a Panera Bread nearby. Also, there are four banks within a two-minute walk, perhaps a sign that people living or working in the area have money to deposit and withdraw. And as Wogan entered the IHOP, he encountered a white man in a teal plaid shirt carrying a laptop. Then again, he also counted four older black women, two teenage boys and two families. And despite an advertisement for free Wi-Fi, no one had a laptop out. No one appeared to be on break from a white-collar job -- Wogan was the only customer wearing a button-down shirt. Maybe Wogan stopped in at the wrong time or on the wrong day. Still, he didn’t spot yuppies eating pancakes. Williams’ campaign did not respond to an inquiry about this claim. Our ruling A $765,828 federal grant helped an IHOP open in a part of the capital that has been gaining retail cachet. It makes sense, too, that the restaurant’s customers include yuppies. Who doesn’t like pancakes? But the intimation that the grant was awarded just to satisfy yuppie appetites fails to acknowledge that people of all stripes (and ages and income levels) order short stacks. Also, the grant enabled dozens of down-and-out individuals to land jobs -- a result not acknowledged in the campaign mailer. We rate Williams’ claim Half True.

Roger Williams

2012-07-11T15:32:10

2012-07-02

['Washington,_D.C.']

abbc-00306

The claim: Andrew Forrest says Australia is the world's biggest iron ore producer and has more control of iron ore than the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) ever had of oil.

in-between

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-06-03/fact-check-australia-share-iron-ore/6483632

The claim: Andrew Forrest says Australia is the world's biggest iron ore producer and has more control of iron ore than the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) ever had of oil.

['iron-ore', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'australia']

['iron-ore', 'business-economics-and-finance', 'australia']

Fact check: Andrew Forrest exaggerating big miner influence over iron ore

Thu 4 Jun 2015, 1:14am

['OPEC', 'Australia']

pomt-05564

This is the only state in the country that bypassed the General Assembly to authorize [in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants].

true

/rhode-island/statements/2012/apr/05/doreen-costa/rhode-island-state-rep-doreen-costa-says-rhode-isl/

In a far-reaching decision last September, the Rhode Island Board of Governors for Higher Education voted to make undocumented immigrants eligible for in-state tuition at public colleges. The move was backed by Governor Chafee, but it came only after years of failed attempts to make the change through the General Assembly. After the vote, opponents complained that the Chafee administration had forced through a sweeping change in state policy through the back door. And almost immediately, some legislators started working to have the decision overturned. State Rep. Doreen Costa is among those leading the charge in the General Assembly. During a recent appearance on WHJJ’s "Helen Glover Show," the North Kingstown Republican talked about legislation she introduced in January that would repeal the Board of Governors’ decision. "This is the only state in the country that bypassed the General Assembly to authorize this," Costa said during the March 26 show. "There was a process that should have been done and the governor chose not to do it." Much has been written in The Journal and other publications about Rhode Island’s decision to offer reduced tuition to undocumented immigrants. Many of those stories have said that Rhode Island is the only state that did so without first passing a law enacting the policy. But in light of the controversy that continues to swirl around the issue, and Costa’s claim, we thought it would be helpful to revisit that specific question. First, some background. State Rep. Grace Diaz, D-Providence, has introduced bills in the General Assembly every year since 2004 to extend in-state tuition to undocumented students in good academic standing. But those bills never got far. During the Carcieri administration, Diaz and other supporters of the policy had also tried unsuccessfully to get the Board of Governors to consider the change. Only after Chafee took office last year did the board -- with new members appointed by Chafee -- take up the issue. And on Sept. 26, its members voted unanimously to adopt the change. In the days afterward, Costa and other lawmakers made no secret of their displeasure with the vote, saying the decision was for the General Assembly to make, not the board. In response to a Journal poll, 19 of the 38 state senators and 26 of the 75 state representatives said they opposed the board’s decision. Under the new policy, which is set to go into effect this September, undocumented students are eligible for reduced, in-state tuition if they meet certain guidelines. Those include that they have attended an approved Rhode Island high school for three or more years or received a GED, and continue to live in Rhode Island; and that they file an affidavit with their chosen college saying they have taken separate action to legalize their citizenship status, or will do so as soon as they become eligible. The vote by the Board of Governors made Rhode Island the 13th state to adopt such a policy. (Wisconsin, which had passed a law on reduced tuition in 2009, repealed it last year and is not included in the list.) And, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures, every other state that has the policy did in fact pass a law first, starting with Texas in 2001 and followed by California (2001), Utah (2002), New York (2002), Washington (2003), Oklahoma (2003), Illinois (2003), Kansas (2004), New Mexico (2005), Nebraska (2006), Maryland (2011) and, most recently, Connecticut (2011). We double-checked the legislation in each state. The NCSL’s information is correct. Our ruling State Rep. Doreen Costa said that Rhode Island is the only state that decided to allow in-state tuition for undocumented immigrants without enacting a law first. The Rhode Island Board of Governors made the move as a matter of policy. In the dozen other states that offer reduced tuition to undocumented students it is a matter of law. State Rep. Grace Diaz has once again submitted a bill to write the policy into law. But until her legislation passes, the Ocean State will stand alone on this issue. We rule Costa’s statement True. (Get updates from PolitiFactRI on Twitter. To comment or offer your ruling, visit us on our PolitiFact Rhode Island Facebook page.)

Doreen Costa

2012-04-05T06:00:00

2012-03-26

['None']

pomt-08221

Small businesses that have "$250,000 in gross sales for the business. They're the ones that are looking at massive tax increases."

pants on fire!

/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/nov/17/michele-bachmann/michele-bachmann-250000-gross-sales-tax-increase/

Tax rates will go up in 2011 unless Congress acts to extend the current rates. Members are talking about voting on the matter before the end of the year. The sticking point is exactly what a final tax package will look like. President Barack Obama campaigned on making permanent the current rates for the middle class, but raising rates for couples who make more than $250,000 and individuals who make more than $200,000. Most Republicans (and some Democrats) would like to see all the current rates made permanent. Now various compromise ideas are being floated, with ideas for extending some rates temporarily or attempting reforms of the tax code. Tea party favorite Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., told George Stephanopoulos on Good Morning America that she was willing to accept a compromise as long as all the current tax rates stayed the same for taxpayers of all incomes. But, she said, she opposed a compromise that would be attached to extending unemployment benefits. Stephanopoulos then asked why it was okay for the wealthy to get their tax cuts extended, but not okay to extend unemployment benefits for the jobless. "Well, remember again what this is. It's a massive tax increase, and it's on the people who are the job creators," Bachmann said. "And people want to think that these are millionaires, sitting in leather chairs, lighting their cigars with $100 bills. That's not what we're talking about. These are people who, who are carpet layers who maybe employ two or three other guys, or a plumber, maybe himself and his brother, and it's $250,000 in gross sales for their business. They're the ones that are looking at massive tax increases." That's probably a compelling narrative for Bachmann -- big government taxes the little guys. We first fact-checked similar claims during the 2008 election, when Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher, aka Joe the Plumber, worried he'd get a tax increase under Obama's plan if he bought a company that took in around $250,000 a year. It wasn't true then, and it isn't true now. Here's why: Plumbers -- or any other small business owner -- get to deduct their business expenses, so they'd have to be bringing in more than $250,000 in gross sales. The tax laws allow small business owners to deduct all kinds of business expenses: employees' pay, supplies, a car or truck, fuel costs, advertising, association dues, utilities, shop repairs, and the list goes on. (For more details, read chapter 8 of the Tax Guide for Small Business published by the IRS.) Bachmann said that the tax increases kick in at "$250,000 in gross sales," which traditionally means total sales at invoice values, or everything the plumbers billed. And, she said the plumbers would be looking at "massive tax increases," when actually the top two rates would be increasing from 33 percent to 36 percent, and from 35 percent to 39.6 percent. Finally, of all taxpayers who declare business income, about 2 percent declare enough income to see tax increases if the rates on the top brackets expire. Most small business owners would not see a tax increase, though the most profitable small businesses would. We're not sure why Bachmann distorted the point about gross sales. As we said, it's something that's been explained several times. Good Morning America posted a note on its website after Bachmann's appearance, noting that her statement was wrong. We asked her spokesperson for a comment but didn't hear back. The proposed increases have been discussed many times and for several years. Her misstatement of the facts on Good Morning America seems designed to scare small business owners into thinking they're in line for a tax increase, even if their income is modest. For distorting the tax proposals to a ridiculous extent, we rate her statement Pants on Fire.

Michele Bachmann

2010-11-17T18:18:02

2010-11-16

['None']

pomt-10609

The Bush administration has "the Pentagon trying to take away the signing bonuses when a soldier gets wounded and ends up in the hospital, something that I'm working with a Republican senator to try to make sure never can happen again."

half-true

/truth-o-meter/statements/2008/jan/21/hillary-clinton/her-words-are-somewhat-misleading/

The dig by Sen. Hillary Clinton makes the Bush administration's treatment of wounded veterans seem almost so heartless as to be implausible. "The Bush administration sends mixed messages," Clinton said during the Democratic debate in Las Vegas. "They want to recruit and retain these young people to serve our country and then they have the Pentagon trying to take away the signing bonuses when a soldier gets wounded and ends up in the hospital, something that I'm working with a Republican senator to try to make sure never can happen again." The Army suggests this issue may all be a tempest in a political teapot, that it simply made a clerical error in asking a wounded vet to return a portion of his signing bonus. But there's another issue, one that may be a bit more legitimate: whether wounded soldiers ought to be guaranteed future installments of enlistment bonuses, bonuses pegged to future years of service they were not able to complete. In 2007, nearly 39,000 army recruits received an average of $16,500 in enlistment bonuses, according to Maj. Nathan M. Banks Sr. of the Department of the Army Public Affairs. The issue Clinton addresses was first raised in July 2007 by the bipartisan Dole-Shalala Commission, when, in the course of work with veterans and their families, they noticed that "service members' remaining enlistment bonuses were not being paid when they were injured and medically retired or separated from active duty." The Defense Department assured the problem was fixed. In October 2007, Rep. Jason Altmire, D-Pa., introduced the Veterans Guaranteed Bonus Act to formally ensure that wounded veterans are paid the entirety of any signing bonus they were promised within 30 days after discharge for combat-related wounds. A Senate version of the bill was introduced by Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., in November 2007. The Senate bill has 18 co-sponsors, including Clinton. The issue gathered steam that month when a Pittsburgh television station reported the story of Jordan Fox, an army private who was partially blinded in one eye from the explosion of a roadside bomb in Iraq. After Fox returned home with a medical discharge, he got a letter from the Army asking him to repay $2,800 of a $7,500 enlistment bonus. While Fox was held up by many politicians as Exhibit A in the case for the new legislation, his case also may have muddied the waters. The Army says it simply made an "error in pay processing." Defense Department policy is clear: Bonuses already paid should not be recouped if "injury or illness of the service member was not the result of the service member's misconduct." The Army contends Fox's was an isolated case. In fact, when it set up a hotline for pay problems, it received just two calls on that issue. So are we talking about legislation to fix a problem that may have affected just three people? As it relates to wounded soldiers having to return portions of paid bonuses, perhaps. And certainly a lot of politicians made a lot of political hay about that. But that's different than unpaid, future installments of bonuses. Say a soldier who got a $10,000 up-front bonus, and was promised an additional $5,000 at the end of each of three years of completed duty. If he was injured and medically discharged in his first year of service, would he get the final two years of unpaid bonuses? Defense Department policy there is less clear. The secretary of the Military Department may decide to pay the soldier unpaid installments if he or she determines that not paying would be "against equity and good conscience, or contrary to the best interests of the United States." The legislation Clinton co-sponsored would require the military to pay all future installments upon medical discharge. No one knows, still, how many wounded veterans this may affect. The Congressional Budget Office informally told congressional staffs that the proposed legislation — to include unpaid installments — might cost about $1-million a year. That may seem like a lot of money, but considering the number of wounded vets, it doesn't suggest they think this is a widespread, institutional problem. The Senate bill seeks an accounting by the military to find out. So while Clinton highlights a legitimate issue — paying future installments of enlistment bonuses even after wounded veterans have been discharged — her wording is somewhat misleading, suggesting wounded veterans are being forced to return bonus money. There is little evidence to suggest that happened to more than a couple veterans, and the Army admitted its mistake. Also misleading is her suggestion that there was some kind of Bush administration effort to deny future bonus payments promised to wounded vets. But she may be right that some were denied future bonus payments (although it is far from clear that this is still happening), and the legislation co-sponsored by Clinton would make it crystal clear they are to be paid. And so we rate her statement Half True.

Hillary Clinton

2008-01-21T00:00:00

2008-01-15

['Republican_Party_(United_States)', 'George_W._Bush', 'The_Pentagon']

snes-02664

Evangelical leader Kenneth Copeland said opponents of President Trump could be "punished" with gay children.

false

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/evangelical-trump-gay/

Junk News

Kim LaCapria

Did an Evangelical Leader Say Trump Opposers Might be Punished With a Gay Child?

7 April 2017

['None']

pomt-04626

Says Republican U.S. Rep. Sean Duffy "voted against paying our soldiers" and "against increasing combat pay" while voting "to protect his own pay."

false

/wisconsin/statements/2012/sep/16/democratic-congressional-campaign-committee/democratic-group-says-duffy-voted-against-pay-incr/

The TV ad that mocks Republican congressman Sean Duffy as a selfish pol who opposed pay for U.S. troops is one of the toughest we’ve seen in the fall 2012 campaign. As combat soldiers trudge under a hot sun, a narrator begins: "They fought for us, walked a mile in these boots." The camera pans to shiny black wing-tips: "Congressman Duffy walked in these, ahem, shoes." The ad from the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee continues: "Facing a government shutdown, Duffy voted against making sure our soldiers got paid...against increasing combat pay." Onscreen: Duffy voted against paying our soldiers. The narrator contemptuously adds: "But Duffy made sure he got paid." Onscreen: Duffy voted to protect his own pay. Pretty serious stuff -- and Democrats are raising the same votes against other Republican candidates. So, did Duffy -- who faces Democrat Pat Kreitlow in his bid for a second term -- really vote to stop military pay raises while shielding his own pocketbook? Turns out the votes cited -- in those footnotes at the bottom of the screen -- are not the whole story. Not even close. The votes referenced in the ad all come from spring 2011, when an extended partisan tussle over spending cuts brought the federal government close to a shutdown. One of the sticky issues was how to deal with congressional pay and military pay if a shutdown occurred. There was plenty of maneuvering for partisan advantage and both parties claimed they were on the side of the troops. To back up its claim, the DCCC pointed us to votes on Democratic-sponsored amendments to three bills. Here’s what we found on the votes in congressional roll calls, the official legislative history and media reports. -- "Voted against paying our soldiers." April 7, 2011: As President Barack Obama and Republican leaders negotiated one day before a shutdown deadline, the GOP-controlled House passed a one-week appropriations bill (H.R. 1363). It funded the Department of Defense for a longer period, the remainder of the fiscal year, through Sept. 30, 2011. Obama had warned that a shutdown would threaten troop pay. Republicans, trying to keep the pressure on, called their measure a "troop funding bill." But Democrats complained it cut too deep and included an unacceptable ban on public funds for abortions in Washington, D.C. Less than 10 minutes before the final approval of the bill, Democrats forced a vote on a different motion. That motion sought to ensure that members of the military would continue to get paid in the event of a shutdown. The maker of the motion, U.S. Rep. Bill Owens, D-New York, argued Obama planned to veto the Republican appropriations for the military, so the troops still would not get paid. Owens did not explain how he expected to protect troop pay through an amendment to a bill the president had pledged to veto. U.S. Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Kentucky, sponsor of the spending bill, said on the floor: "This motion is purely a political gesture and should be defeated ... The real fact is that if you vote against this bill, you are voting against the troops who are engaged in three wars." Duffy voted no on the motion along with all but one other Republican. But he was in the 247-181 majority, including 15 Democrats, that approved the underlying bill. So, did Duffy "vote against paying our soldiers" as the ad says? No. He opposed one amendment, but the effect of his votes would have kept money flowing to the military for the rest of the budget year. -- Voted "against increasing combat pay." May 26, 2011: After the 2011 funding crisis was averted, the House debated a defense authorization bill for the following year, 2012. Democrats called for a vote on a motion to boost pay for combat troops. U.S. Rep. Buck McKeon, R-California, called it transparently political: "We had all kinds of time to bring an amendment that would be helpful like this, then they bring this one. There's no offset. This would just put us again above the allocation from the chairman. This is really more Democrat increasing spending." The motion failed, with Duffy in opposition. What the DCCC ad doesn’t say is that the full bill -- supported by Duffy, nearly all Republicans and 95 Democrats -- already included a pay hike of 1.6 percent in the monthly basic pay for members of the uniformed services. That covered combat troops as well. So, Duffy didn’t vote for the additional bump proposed at the very end of the process, but he voted for the increased pay level in the underlying bill. He did the same in 2012, on a 1.7 percent pay increase. Think of it this way: There is a bill to increase spending by $500,000 for a particular program. An amendment is offered to increase it to $750,000. If a person votes against the amendment but for the bill, are they "voting against an increase in spending" for the program? -- "Voted to protect his own pay." April 1, 2011: During the shutdown crisis, Republicans controlling the House approved a bill (H.R. 1255) directing that its version of budget cuts become law if the Senate did not act by April 6, 2011. Both parties maneuvered to score points during debate on the bill, resulting in separate actions that were largely symbolic and arguably unconstitutional. While the GOP claimed the House action alone could make the bill law, Roll Call pointed out the bill "would not become law unless the Senate also approves it and the president signs it into law, neither of which is expected to occur." The budget-cuts bill included a prohibition on paying members of Congress and the president during a shutdown (members get paid during a shutdown while most federal employees do not). But as even some Republicans pointed out, under the constitution pay cannot be reduced mid-term. To address that concern, some proponents argued members would get paid retroactively for any loss of salary. Democrats pounced on that -- and went further, seeking an amendment to bar any retro payments. But The Washington Post reported that they got a surprise on the floor when when a Republican member revealed an email from Obama’s Justice Department questioning the constitutionality of the motion. Duffy and all but one Republican voted against the Democratic motion, which failed. Duffy voted in favor of H.R. 1255, including the ban on paying members during a shutdown. It passed but died in the Senate. Both measures -- as dubious legally as they were -- were attempts to erase the pay protections that members of Congress have in current law for getting paid during a shutdown. Indeed, it is standard for all federal employees to get retroactive pay once a shutdown ends is standard, PolitiFact National found in a 2011 Truth-O-Meter item. So saying that Duffy was out to protect his check is a big stretch. A final note: The Democratic amendments in question were "motions to recommit," a prerogative of the minority party since the first Congress. They are motions, partly procedural, that attempt to send a bill back to committee just before passage. "Both parties, when in the minority, have used these to make political statements and embarrass the majority for partisan advantage," said Donald Wolfensberger, an expert on parliamentary rules who was a key Republican staffer for the House Rules Committee in the 1990s. "It is well understood in modern times that these are designed for partisan campaign purposes and usually have little to do with better policy." Indeed, Democrats complained bitterly in 2007 when then-minority Republicans used "MTRs" to stall and score political points, the Post noted. For example, in March 2007, Democrats tried to pass a bill to give the District of Columbia a vote in the House. From the Post: "Republicans moved to recommit the bill to committee, attaching new language that would have thrown out the District’s strict anti-gun laws. Worried that conservative, pro-gun Democrats would feel compelled to vote with GOP and kill the bill, Democratic leaders yanked it from the floor." Both parties, when in the minority, contend the motions can have merit and are not purely procedural. Our rating A Democratic TV ad charges that Duffy "voted against paying our soldiers" and "against increasing combat pay" while voting "to protect his own pay." The claims are based on Duffy’s votes on "motions to recommit" that preceded final votes on military and congressional pay. Such motions are routinely denied by the majority party as procedural moves. That gives the minority party the chance to structure them for partisan advantage. That’s what is playing out in the ad now. We rate the claim False.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee

2012-09-16T09:00:00

2012-08-29

['United_States', 'Sean_Duffy']